This article has been migrated from an earlier version of the site and may display formatting inconsistencies.
09 Jun 2009, The Straits Times
Question
Name of the Person: Dr Adrian Tan Yong Kuan
Medical Act: Did feedback reflect docs' views?
I REFER to last Friday's article, 'Medical Act change: 80% backing for non-doctor to chair discipline panel', which stated that 'nearly eight in 10 people backed this and other changes to disciplinary proceedings and thought it would streamline the process'.
The actual press statement by the Ministry of Health (MOH) last Thursday stated that there were 78 responses received. Of these, 12 were from the public, of which 11 agreed with the proposed amendments under this category. The remaining 66 responses were from 'doctors/health professionals', of which only 18 responses were noted to 'disagree'.
The vast majority of the 8,000 or so doctors in Singapore belong to at least one or more of the following organisations: Academy of Medicine, Singapore (AMS), College of Family Physicians Singapore (CFPS) and Singapore Medical Association (SMA).
All three organisations either expressed reservations or disagreed with the proposed amendment to allow a layman to chair Singapore Medical Council (SMC) disciplinary committees. One can only wonder if the positions of these three large organisations were represented or accounted for adequately in the statistic of almost 80 per cent.
Does the position of one such organisation, which represents anywhere from more than 1,000 to 5,000 members, count as one response and carry the same weight as a response from an individual doctor or an individual member of the public? If so, perhaps the AMS, CFPS and SMA leaderships should organise signature petitions from their thousands of members so MOH can adequately recognise the situation.
MOH should clarify how responses from the AMS, CFPS and SMA representing thousands of doctors were accounted for, so we can better understand how the figure of nearly 80 per cent was obtained.
In addition, I am given to understand that the SMC is a statutory body funded from the annual subscriptions of doctors. If this is so, the least MOH could do is to consider subsidising SMC operations if it really wants a layman to chair SMC disciplinary committees. Not many doctors I know would want to fund a layman to chair such committees.
Reply
Name of the Person: Karen Tan (Ms)
Director, Corporate Communications
Ministry of Health
Medical Act: Did feedback reflect docs' views? I REFER to last Thursday's letter, 'Medical Act: Did feedback reflect docs' views?', and last Friday's Forum Online letter, 'Non-doctor for discipline panel a mockery of self-regulation'.
In the first letter, Dr Adrian Tan Yong Kuan referred to a provision in the proposed Medical Registration Amendment Bill that will allow senior legal officers or judges to chair disciplinary tribunals inquiring into complaints filed against doctors.
While the majority of the respondents supported the proposed amendments, Dr Tan felt that many doctors probably left it to their professional bodies to give feedback on their behalf.
The Academy of Medicine, the College of Family Physicians and the Singapore Medical Association have indeed raised their reservations on the proposed amendment. We would like to clarify that the proposed amendment is to give the Singapore Medical Council (SMC) the option of appointing a legal officer, senior lawyer or retired judge, as chairman of the tribunal for each case to be heard.
This may be necessary, particularly in cases involving complex legalities and when it is in the best interest of the public or the profession to do so. The SMC, comprising entirely medical doctors, retains the power to determine when this is necessary. Hence we can expect the disciplinary tribunals will continue to be chaired by medical practitioners, except in rare situations.
The inclusion of non-medical practitioners such as senior lawyers as chairmen in such tribunals is not unusual. It is practised in New Zealand and Victoria in Australia. In Britain, there is no specific stipulation that the chairman of the panel needs to be a doctor.