tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15575652.post116669537412916254..comments2024-03-05T00:59:35.390+08:00Comments on Angry Doctor: "tarnish the medical profession"angry dochttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03132410467147982699noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15575652.post-2175615697611121812013-01-04T20:50:51.938+08:002013-01-04T20:50:51.938+08:00It won't succeed as a matter of fact, that'...It won't succeed as a matter of fact, that's exactly what I think.<br /><a href="http://qihotern.xanga.com/" rel="nofollow"> also 8</a> | <a href="http://cyrilsancereau.tumblr.com" rel="nofollow">good here</a> | <a href="http://earsasoti1970.posterous.com/business-lead-a-gorgeous-sexual-living" rel="nofollow"> also 9</a> <a href="http://timohank.blogalbums.com/" rel="nofollow">superb 1</a> | <a href="http://nonthmahanland1970.posterous.com/head-a-lovely-sex-related-living" rel="nofollow">good 4</a> | <a href="http://megandrapers.tumblr.com" rel="nofollow"> do not forget site</a> <a href="http://waroucogcy1976.posterous.com/impotence-issues-and-also-remedies-for-you-pe" rel="nofollow">check 5</a> | <a href="http://nobreaklights.tumblr.com" rel="nofollow">look 9</a>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15575652.post-1167384596331486132006-12-29T17:29:00.000+08:002006-12-29T17:29:00.000+08:00Indeed. Not only is the SMC Disciplinary Committee...Indeed. Not only is the SMC Disciplinary Committee held to a lower standard of proof, it is also at once the investigating officer, prosecution, judge, and jury – which was why I was concerned that it should not also be the plaintiff. In any case, a letter from the SMC today revealed that the complainant in this case was the Ministry.<BR/><BR/>Dec 29, 2006<BR/>Doc's Subutex offences pre-dated first SMC inquiry<BR/><BR/>I REFER to the letter, 'Why let errant doc dispense Subutex?' (ST, Dec 23), by Ms Maria Loh Mun Foong. <BR/><BR/>Following a Singapore Medical Council (SMC) disciplinary inquiry in April 2004, Dr John Heng was found guilty of overprescribing cough mixtures and sleeping tablets. <BR/><BR/>At the recent inquiry against Dr Heng, he was charged with failing to formulate and/or adhere to a management plan for the patients for whom he had prescribed Subutex. <BR/><BR/>We wish to clarify that at the time of the first disciplinary inquiry in April 2004, Dr Heng had already committed the Subutex-related offences and the Ministry of Health had then referred him to SMC. These were for offences for which he was found guilty at the recent second hearing. <BR/><BR/>Dr Lau Hong Choon <BR/>Executive Secretary <BR/>Singapore Medical Councilangry dochttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03132410467147982699noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15575652.post-1167331895854230372006-12-29T02:51:00.000+08:002006-12-29T02:51:00.000+08:00There is a distinction between a court of law and ...There is a distinction between a court of law and a disciplinary hearing by SMC. Although the latter has some of the trappings of a trial, the rules on evidence and standard of proof are not quite similar. As this case illustrates, the SMC could decide to shift from the need for a unanimous decision to a majority decision to censure. A judge in a court cannot change the standard of proof as and when he likes.<BR/><BR/>As for the complainant and locus standi, the usual rules do apply. I do not know who the complainant is in this particular case but it could be another doctor in the neighborhood who suspects something, the narcotics officer who discovers that the same doctor has been providing an unusually large number of drug addicts with Subutex, intelligence from drug pushers etc..When I was in the army I raised a complaint to the SMC over irregular MCs that were issued by a GP to a serviceman, which led to his suspension by the SMC.<BR/><BR/>Now that Subutex has been re-classified as a controlled drug, we can well expect doctors who double as drug pushers may be charged with a criminial offence. The absence of good medical records may be cited as evidence that the doctor is selling controlled drugs under the guise of a prescription. It is then up to the judge to decide if if the doctor is a criminal or just sloopy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15575652.post-1166974551996327632006-12-24T23:35:00.000+08:002006-12-24T23:35:00.000+08:00Yes the law doesn't seem to protect the doctor.But...Yes the law doesn't seem to protect the doctor.<BR/><BR/>But SMC does.<BR/><BR/>Face it. If SMC is only going to fine a repeat offender $2500 accompanied by some stern warnings....well....how do you expect the DPP to open a case?<BR/><BR/>In any case, SMC would say it is hard to prove that there was trafficking etc etc etc<BR/><BR/>SMC is not a court. They don't have resources eg police at their disposal.<BR/><BR/>Hence it is clear to everyone that doctors are very protected from such punishment. I think the narcotics division in the police are aware of this and have made many appeals to MOH to change the laws/system.<BR/><BR/>Put it this way. If doctors were to be not lazy and document whatever they need to document (even if it is a lie) that they are treating a patient properly, then basically you have no case against them.<BR/><BR/>It's a rather dangerous idea, but could it be possible that sometimes the documentation might be there for specific purposes of not getting into trouble but not really reflect the truth?<BR/><BR/>I know it brings the whole "tarnishing/bringing disrepute to the profession by suggesting doctors are liars" but then can we really be sure?<BR/><BR/>Just playing the devil's advocate here.<BR/><BR/>I personally think repeat offenders should be dealt with a lot more severely. Instead the trend seems to be as you are more often in the SMC's radar, the punishments get more lenient!<BR/><BR/>I gather that's a signal to the younger generation of doctors.Dr Oz blokehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00876294124443628182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15575652.post-1166851812432648272006-12-23T13:30:00.000+08:002006-12-23T13:30:00.000+08:00Actually, I'm not sure doctors peddling drugs is a...Actually, I'm not sure doctors peddling drugs is at all outside police or CNB jurisdiction.<BR/><BR/>Subutex aside (it not being a controlled drug previously), I don't see anything in the Misuse of Drugs Act that specifically say you cannot charge a doctor for trafficking controlled drugs or abetting someone in the consumption of controlled drug.<BR/><BR/>While a doctor may make the excuse that he is treating the patient with the drug, if the SMC finds his treatment inappropriate then I don't see why an agressive DPP shouldn't try to make the case that the doctor was aware that his patient was abusing the drug and that his actions amounted to abetting. <BR/><BR/>In other words, I don't think the law protects a doctor from being charged for trafficking or abetting, but it's probably a case of the law not being used on doctors for traditional reasons. Maybe the CNB or DPP don't think it's easy to prove the case? I might be wrong though.angry dochttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03132410467147982699noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15575652.post-1166836421905380742006-12-23T09:13:00.000+08:002006-12-23T09:13:00.000+08:00If you look at the bigger picture I think there is...If you look at the bigger picture I think there is a more serious problem.<BR/><BR/>Doctors pedddling drugs (albeit legally by prescription) are not dealt with under the normal judiciary.<BR/><BR/>They are dealt with by SMC. SMC can at the most strike off a doctor from the register and issue a $10,000 maximum fine.<BR/><BR/>No jail. No cane. No death penalty.<BR/><BR/>Looking at how this was abused, frankly I think that should change from now on. What do you think?Dr Oz blokehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00876294124443628182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15575652.post-1166781079417275812006-12-22T17:51:00.000+08:002006-12-22T17:51:00.000+08:00Well, poor medical records isn't really under poli...Well, poor medical records isn't really under police jurisdiction, and until August Subutex wasn't under CNB jurisdiction either.<BR/><BR/>I wouldn't mind if MOH was the complainant (assuming a ministry can be a complainant in this case), but I would like to know who or which department in the ministry filed the complaint.angry dochttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03132410467147982699noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15575652.post-1166764999821957202006-12-22T13:23:00.000+08:002006-12-22T13:23:00.000+08:00I think the "complainant" was MOH lah.Or maybe the...I think the "complainant" was MOH lah.<BR/><BR/>Or maybe the Singapore Police Force? Narcotics division?Dr Oz blokehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00876294124443628182noreply@blogger.com