[ad_1]
SINGAPORE: A doctor was removed from the registry on Wednesday (November 4) for violating medical confidentiality by providing protected information to a patient’s employer and for providing misleading and inaccurate information about his credentials.
The Singapore Medical Council (SMC) had appealed against an 18-month suspension ordered by a disciplinary court, pressing for Dr. Chua Shunjie to be removed from the register of provisionally registered doctors.
The High Court granted the SMC appeal, noting that it was “unusual” and that it was probably the first time that disciplinary proceedings against a provisionally registered doctor had been brought before the High Court.
Chua had graduated from Duke-NUS Graduate School of Medicine in 2015 and was granted provisional registration by SMC, allowing him to practice as an intern officer and obtain the certificate of experience necessary to apply for full or conditional registration.
However, a complaint was filed against him in May 2016 and six charges were brought against him under the Medical Record Act.
Chua pleaded guilty to four of them and the other two were taken into consideration.
In April 2016, he was assigned to the general surgery team at Ng Teng Fong General Hospital. There he examined and treated a patient, managing discharge.
After the patient was discharged, he returned for physical therapy sessions and approached Chua because he was unhappy with the length of the medical leave he had been granted.
After a telephone conversation with the patient, Chua issued an extended medical certificate without meeting with the patient or conducting any evaluation.
Later, the patient’s employer approached Chua to clarify the condition of the patient, who had refused to resume work and filed a claim for loss of income based on the issued medical certificate.
Without the patient’s consent, Chua sent a letter to the patient’s employer on hospital letterhead, informing the employer of the patient’s medical condition, diagnosis, and treatment.
Chua was also featured in an author’s biography in a research letter to the British Journal of Dermatology as “Chua Shunjie, BEng, MD, National Skin Center, Singapore”.
However, Chua was not affiliated with the National Skin Center, nor was the studio affiliated with it.
He also sent letters to the Journal of the Deutschen Dermatologischen Gesellschaft and the Obstetrics & Gynecology Journal stating that they had been co-authors of “Mark Pitts” and “Peter Lemark”, when there were no such co-authors.
Chua also submitted applications for approval to conduct two studies, claiming that he was a member of the Department of Dermatology at Singapore General Hospital, when he was not involved in any way with them.
The disciplinary tribunal was held last year and Chua received an 18-month suspension, but the SMC appealed against this.
Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, who delivered the verdict, said the court did not consider Chua’s guilty plea to be a sign of genuine repentance.
In his explanation to the complaints committee, Chua had categorically denied the allegations of false information, claiming they were a by-product of inexperience, and tried to convince the committee that the fictitious co-authors were real.
“The severity of Chua’s misconduct demands the most severe sanction possible in order to serve the purposes of general deterrence and to deter potential offenders from committing similar misconduct in the future,” said the Chief Justice.
“This would serve to protect the public trust and defend the position of the medical profession.”
