S’pore Medical Council sets record straight on disciplinary process

SINGAPORE — The Singapore Medical Council (SMC) has stepped forward to defend its disciplinary process, following a commentary criticising its processes in The Straits Times earlier this month.

In a letter to medical practitioners that was also issued to the media yesterday, SMC president Tan Ser Kiat said the commentary had centred on the case of Dr Lawrence Ang, a obstetrician and gynaecologist who had been found guilty by the SMC, but whose verdict was recently overturned by the Court of Appeal. The council had also been ordered to foot Dr Ang’s legal costs.

The SMC has processed more than 1,000 cases lodged against doctors since 2008. To date, about 110 formal disciplinary inquiries have been conducted before disciplinary committees or tribunals. Of these, four outcomes were reversed by the courts.

“This is not a phenomenon unique to the SMC disciplinary process as all of us would be aware that such reversals occur occasionally in civil as well as criminal matters adjudicated before the courts,” he said.

The commentary, Paying the Price when Rulings are Overturned, was published on Dec 6 and argued that mistakes in the proceedings could prove costly to doctors and taxpayers.

In 2009, Dr Ang delivered a baby who had an infection and congenital pneumonia that required five months of hospitalisation. An SMC disciplinary committee said the baby’s condition was not the doctor’s fault, but suspended him for three months for not having a neonatologist present or on standby for the delivery.

In his letter, Prof Tan said the commentary had chosen to focus on the first conviction by the SMC to be overturned in more than two years. “It does so while failing to highlight the fact that, in the course of that time, more than 20 convictions were recorded and three appeals by doctors against their convictions were unsuccessful.”

Prof Tan also pointed out that, while the article had suggested the SMC did not want to divulge the source of its income, the council informed all its doctors in January last year that the fees collected from them are not expected to manage all of its costs and that it receives “considerable government financial assistance”.

As for the article’s suggestion to amend the Medical Registration Act so SMC disciplinary tribunals include a legally trained person, Prof Tan said the council has such a person on or assisting in all disciplinary tribunals.

In July, the SMC responded to wide-ranging recommendations made by a committee formed in December 2012 to improve the disciplinary process of doctors. The medical watchdog said then that some measures, such as the secondment of a legal service officer to the SMC, had been rolled out.

The committee was formed after the Court of Appeal dismissed charges against aesthetic doctor Low Chai Ling in September 2012. Referring to the case, Prof Tan said: “The article suggests the High Court made ‘scathing comments about the SMC’s biased and slipshod disciplinary inquiry’ (in the case) ... While there are significant learning points to be gleaned from the court’s comments in that case, it is clear from the court’s Grounds of Decision ... that no suggestion is made whatsoever of alleged ‘biasness’ or ‘slipshod’ behaviour on the part of the SMC.”

Doctors whom TODAY spoke to said they generally had no issues with the SMC’s disciplinary processes. Still, some felt the SMC could be more proactive in explaining the processes and providing more information on them. Dr Lee Yik Voon, a private general practitioner, said: “It’s good information (to know), it’s just that we (doctors) probably won’t bother (finding out about the processes) unless you’re involved.”