I have requested the consent of my clients to share with you my experience with the Medical Council. After reading the Frank Portelli case, I was surprised at how the Medical Council can give redress to a medical doctor but is reluctant in many cases to give redress to the general public. This is a feeling expressed not only by yours truly by the public at large.
My first experience was of a medical doctor who worked for a private company and who, without ever seeing my client and falsely claiming that he consulted other colleagues about this client, informed his employer that my client had mental problems. Needless to say, my client lost his job for refusing to go and see a psychiatrist.
But when my client complained to the Medical Council, the Council pleaded that the six months’ prescription had elapsed from when the alleged misconduct had taken place and therefore the case could not be investigated. The doctor is still practising but my client went through hell with his employer convincing him that he had no mental problems. That was my first experience.
The second experience is the case of a wife who was looking for a paper in the house and found documents issued by two medical doctors stating that her husband was taking medication and care for depression and schizophrenia. She told the husband about it and he accused her of defamation producing certificates from the same doctors who earlier on diagnosed him of suffering from his mental condition, stating that her husband has not been under medication for the past five years when in actual fact she had documents signed by the same medical doctors which stated the contrary.
The wife complained to the Medical Council but the reply from the Medical Council that the doctors did nothing wrong. And the wife until today does not know whether the medical condition of her husband is hereditary and how to ensure that the children get the proper care and preventive treatment. But the Medical Council found no misconduct in the issue of false declarations by these medical doctors and her complaint was rejected.
In my experience with the legal and architects ethics commissions, the complainant is given the chance to prove his case before these commissions, to cross examine the witnesses produced by both the complainant and the defense and the commission takes a decision on the evidence produced. But in the case of the Medical Council, the council does not give the complainant any rights and the rights are given to the member of the medical profession who is being accused of medical malpractice or breach of medical ethics.
It is no wonder therefore that the public does not trust the Medical Council and it is high time that the composition of the council be discussed in order to bring back the trust of the public. First of all, the composition of the medical council must change and be composed of retired members of the medical profession in order to avoid conflict of interest. Secondly, the complainant must have a say in the matter and not be excluded in all the proceedings so that he is faced with the decision without ever having access or a say in defense of his case. No hearings are made before the medical council, the complainant is not allowed to defend his case and does not have access or is not given any reasons as to why his complaint was not accepted.
The public perception of the Medical Council is that it is there to defend doctors and not patients and only a change in how things are done can bring about a change in public perception. I do not understand how and why the council does not hold any hearings for the parties to stand their case but decides the case without giving any explanation to the complainant as to why and how the decision was that there was no wrong doing from the member of the medical profession concerned.
In the case of the wife who had all the documents in had to prove that the doctors were lying when they stated that her husband has not been under medication for the past five years – when she had medical certificates issued by the doctors prescribing medication for the husband for his mental condition, and despite all this, the Medical Council found no wrong doing, is something which worries everybody and it is no wonder that the public has no faith in the Medical Council.
Experience has shown that the Council tends to give redress to doctors complaining against fellow doctors rather than to the public’s complaints against doctors. Members investigating the complaints are doctors who are still in the profession. There is no transparency in the conduct of these investigations. The complainant is not given the right to present his case and does not have access to the defense presented by the complainant.
Even in cases alleging medical malpractice the Courts find it very difficult to appoint medical experts both because they lose money and secondly they are embarrassed to investigate their colleagues. In fact whereas in other countries medical malpractice is very common, in Malta the cases are rare because the public knows that these are cases that in Malta they are very difficult to prove.
I hope that this contributions helps to stimulate a debate and make the readers more aware of the need to reform the constitution and the complaints’ procedure by the Medical Council. It is so unfortunate that Frank Portelli’s case continues to re-affirm the public perception that the Medical Council is there to give redress to doctors but not to the public.
Any comments?
If you wish your comments to be published in our Letters pages please click button below. Please write a contact number and a postal address where you may be contacted.
Download front page in pdf file format
All the interviews from Reporter on MaltaToday's YouTube channel.
