Clarification on advertising ban is essential, group says The Medical Council is to appeal against a ruling that its ban on advertising by doctors is unconstitutional. Twenty of the council's 28 members were present at a meeting yesterday and unanimously voted to appeal, saying the issue affected more than just doctors' interests. They said a clarification from the higher courts was essential in striking a balance between freedom of expression and appropriate restrictions in the public interest. Court of First Instance Justice Mr Justice Anselmo Reyes found last month that sections of the council's code on professional conduct violated Basic Law provisions on freedom of speech and the Bill of Rights Ordinance. The judicial review was initiated by Kwong Kwok-hay, assistant medical superintendent of the Hong Kong Sanatorium and Hospital, who said a blanket ban was unnecessary and too broad. Mr Justice Reyes said the ban on advertising in the code interfered with a 'guaranteed right' and it was incumbent upon the Medical Council 'to give cogent reasons for justifying the infringement'. Medical Council chairwoman Felice Lieh Mak said yesterday the council would provide the Court of Appeal with justifications for the restrictions, which were necessary to 'protect public health' and 'public interest'. 'Medicine as a profession is distinguished from other professions because of a special moral duty which is emphasised,' Professor Lieh Mak said. 'This is a duty of care to save lives and relieve suffering. Because of this special duty of care, the Medical Council has established a code of ethics.' The council has also issued a set of interim guidelines, informing members that the judgment did not render the whole of the relevant sections of the code unlawful. 'The court recognises that some form of control is necessary but the rules put in place should be justified as proportionate in the light of a legitimate purpose,' the guidelines state. 'Medical practitioners seeking advice on questions of professional conduct arising in particular circumstances are advised to consult a professional association or their own legal advisers.' The Hong Kong Medical Association yesterday revealed that of 1,840 doctors who responded to questionnaires on whether the ruling should be appealed, 77 per cent said yes. Only 18 per cent said the Medical Council should not appeal. Professor Lieh Mak said doctors, as well as nurses, dentists, Chinese medicine practitioners and others would be affected by the ruling and it was important to clarify 'what is considered a proportional restriction on freedom of speech'. 'The Bill of Rights does not set it out as an absolute right,' Professor Lieh Mak said. 'But what restrictions are proportionate in the interests of upholding professionalism and protecting the public? We just want to clarify the issue.'