Advertisement
Hong Kong society
Opinion
SCMP Editorial
Opinion
SCMP Editorial

More transparency and accountability good for Hong Kong’s Medical Council

Having more lay members in the watchdog and public disclosures of time frames in handling complaints are welcome reforms

2-MIN READ2-MIN
Listen
Secretary for Health Lo Chung-mau seen at the government headquarters in Hong Kong on June 26. Photo: Jonathan Wong
SCMP Editorial
Editorials represent the views of the South China Morning Post on the issues of the day.
Reform of the Medical Council can seem like an update of the watchdog that mainly concerns doctors. But it is also the subject of keen interest after the failure of the profession’s self-regulation to meet public expectations. A case in point, for which the ombudsman criticised the council, is the lengthy complaints process, with 11 cases stuck in limbo for more than 10 years. This included a 15-year delay in the handling of an alleged blunder that left a boy permanently disabled.
This state of affairs could not continue. It is therefore good to hear that it will be addressed with amendments to the Medical Registration Ordinance. Unveiling the proposed changes, Secretary for Health Lo Chung-mau said the reforms aimed to foster more diverse participation in the Medical Council.
While aimed at upholding professional autonomy, the reforms include two issues previously highlighted – public representation on the council and disclosure of time frames for investigating and adjudicating complaints. The latter should include the number and nature of complaints unresolved after, say, a year, and the reasons, without infringing privacy.

Doctors currently outnumber lay members in public representation on the 32-person council three to one. Raising the proportion of lay members from 25 per cent to 31 per cent would make this disparity closer to two to one. That still does not compare with the roughly 50-50 equal public representation on the council’s British counterpart. This does not mean Hong Kong should follow suit, but, if the medical profession is privileged with the self-regulation of a key public health sector, it can live with more robust transparency and accountability. It might have prevented the delays in the complaints process that made this reform necessary.

Under the proposed framework, the pool of independent adjudicators available for complaint inquiries will be doubled to 280, comprising 110 doctor adjudicators and 170 lay members. Asked why a complaints inquiry panel would not operate independently from the Medical Council, a Health Bureau spokesman said the council represented the professional body of doctors, and investigations and inquiries would be difficult to run without medical members involved. The addition of more lay members would instead be sufficient to ensure greater independence.

Hong Kong has world-class medical services. But there has long been the perception of a need for greater transparency. Delayed complaints have brought public discontent to the surface. Doctors may be right to say that some decisions at the regulatory level require professional knowledge. But there remains a strong argument for more transparency and accountability.

Advertisement
Select Voice
Select Speed
1.00x