<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR>Light penalty reinforces poor disciplinary image of doctors
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->I REFER to last Thursday's report,
'Plastic surgeon fined, censured for cell therapy'. I and many of my medical colleagues are dismayed by the very light punishment given by the Singapore Medical Council (SMC).
It can only reinforce the public's impression that doctors often protect their own kind, sacrificing public interest.
Surely Dr Martin Huang has made more than $5,000 from his treatment of the three patients with sheep foetal cells. Has he returned the money to these three patients? His explanations are unacceptable for a doctor trained in the finest centres of learning.
Perhaps the SMC can learn a thing or two from the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore on the appropriate deterrent penalty.
Other doctors more ingenious than Dr Huang have now decided to refer their patients for non-autologous stem cell therapy in other countries. A patient told me recently that her cardiologist recommended that he accompany her to China for stem cell therapy for her torn shoulder muscle. An obstetrician and gynaecologist proudly told the press that he now sends his patients to other countries with more lax regulations for stem cell therapy.
In case the public thinks that the medical establishment in other countries endorse experimental stem cell therapy in all its ugly forms, neurologists in the Netherlands and Switzerland have acted to try to stop the charlatans.
Singapore's Ministry of Health has taken the very unusual stand that doctors who want to use controversial treatments on their patients can do so provided they are part of an approved clinical trial.
Some doctors have now started their own small trials on aesthetic procedures. How do we know these trials are going to be conducted scientifically and honestly? Can patients be charged for treatment given as part of a trial to see if the procedure has any medical benefit at all? Can the poor doctor be expected to be impartial when evaluating a procedure in which he has invested so much?
In the end, gullible patients lose while the medical fraternity loses the trust of the public.
Dr Tang Kok Foo
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->I REFER to last Thursday's report,
'Plastic surgeon fined, censured for cell therapy'. I and many of my medical colleagues are dismayed by the very light punishment given by the Singapore Medical Council (SMC).
It can only reinforce the public's impression that doctors often protect their own kind, sacrificing public interest.
Surely Dr Martin Huang has made more than $5,000 from his treatment of the three patients with sheep foetal cells. Has he returned the money to these three patients? His explanations are unacceptable for a doctor trained in the finest centres of learning.
Perhaps the SMC can learn a thing or two from the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore on the appropriate deterrent penalty.
Other doctors more ingenious than Dr Huang have now decided to refer their patients for non-autologous stem cell therapy in other countries. A patient told me recently that her cardiologist recommended that he accompany her to China for stem cell therapy for her torn shoulder muscle. An obstetrician and gynaecologist proudly told the press that he now sends his patients to other countries with more lax regulations for stem cell therapy.
In case the public thinks that the medical establishment in other countries endorse experimental stem cell therapy in all its ugly forms, neurologists in the Netherlands and Switzerland have acted to try to stop the charlatans.
Singapore's Ministry of Health has taken the very unusual stand that doctors who want to use controversial treatments on their patients can do so provided they are part of an approved clinical trial.
Some doctors have now started their own small trials on aesthetic procedures. How do we know these trials are going to be conducted scientifically and honestly? Can patients be charged for treatment given as part of a trial to see if the procedure has any medical benefit at all? Can the poor doctor be expected to be impartial when evaluating a procedure in which he has invested so much?
In the end, gullible patients lose while the medical fraternity loses the trust of the public.
Dr Tang Kok Foo
