EditorialMedical Council reform must prioritise the public interest

Self-regulation by a profession serving the public is fine, so long as it truly serves the public interest in practice. Otherwise it risks undermining public confidence. A case in point is the Medical Council of Hong Kong’s handling of public complaints. The Ombudsman has criticised its lengthy process, highlighting 11 cases that remained unresolved after more than a decade.

The council is mostly made up of doctors.

One case that caused a public outcry, an alleged medical blunder that left a boy permanently disabled, was delayed for 15 years, and then terminated by the council because the long process had made the hearing unfair to the doctor. This has rightly prompted the government to draft amendments to the Medical Registration Ordinance to address concerns.

Lo also said there would not be any punishment for council members who underperformed or failed in their duty, because they were unpaid volunteers. But they may be replaced. Does this just mean not being reappointed at the end of their terms?

Surely we should expect more robust transparency and accountability from a powerful body responsible for registering and licensing medical practitioners in Hong Kong. Doctors outnumber lay members on the 32-member Medical Council three to one. Such serious criticism warrants a response that puts the public interest first. It could include regular reports of the number and nature of complaints unresolved after, say, a year, as well as the reasons, without infringing privacy.