Circular No. 1984, 3^rd April 2001

President's message - The Dogmatic Medical Council

Professional Performance Committee

"Hong Kong Doctors Union membership is only 1,000 odd…", "HKDU members belongs to a highly selected group and its view is not representative at all …", "Only 200 odd responded with majority against the establishment of Professional Performance Committee (PPC), how about the other 1,000 odds, I think these other 1,000 odds should agree on the establishment instead ... Ha, Ha.", "The Medical Council has been doing survey too on Mandatory CME in 1999 with the result that the majority view was for Mandatory CME* and we have not implemented Mandatory CME yet… So why should we consider the result of the survey conducted by Hong Kong Doctors Union to stop the establishment of PPC..."

These are the sort of remarks made by the Chairman of the Medical Council (MC) on our Union in Policy Meeting of MC held on 7^th March 2001. The Chairman and other members of the MC downgraded HKDU's representation, and didn't even bother to note the results of our survey. They even did not bother to consider our colleagues' objection to the proposed PPC raised in the 6^th Open Forum of the Medical Council on 20^th December 2000. One member even commented that the arguments in our submission letter (enclosed as Circular No. 1980) are illogical with no sense at all, and I am sad that he is also a member of our Union.

I proposed a named referendum in the whole medical profession to decide on the establishment of PPC but failed for obvious reason. I was even more down during the meeting when the motion was put to vote on "Whether the Medical Council should establish the PPC according to the progress report of the working group on PPC" during which only Dr. Tse Hung Hing, myself and one HKMA elected member objected. The motion was carried with eight against three. Some Council Members supported with the belief that the findings of the PPC should not be revealed to the Preliminary Investigation Committee if professional misconduct is suspected, BUT I wonder if the public, especially those complainants, would be satisfied with such an arrangement by the Medical Council.

Mandatory CME again

You may have noted my open letter to the Chairman of the Medical Council of Hong Kong accompanied in this enclosure on the issue of Mandatory CME. It seems that things are turning rapidly against the majority views of our members. Let me reiterate what exactly is the meaning and consequences of Mandatory CME for all doctors once again.

1. A doctor, whether he is specialist or not, will be de-registered from the General Register if he fails to comply with CME requirements set up by the MC;
2. Since resources are limited, Mandatory CME cannot be sustained without heavy subsidies from all doctors and we have to watch out for monopolization of CME functions;
3. The road to Continuous Professional Development and later Revalidation for all doctors would not be far away if mandatory CME is implemented.

What should we do then? Should we start another signature campaign? Would such campaign still end in the Medical Council's waste paper basket? Any other good suggestion? Or shall we just keep quiet and be good "school boys", or shall we protest like the teachers to voice our objection? It is ALL up to you!　

The Union needs your support

The prime responsibility of Hong Kong Doctors Union is to protect the interests of our members. You have to show your full support if you want the Union to serve you better. Only with your full support can she really succeed in protecting your interests like the Teachers Union. Only with your full support can she become stronger and stronger. Otherwise, our members will leave in despair sooner or later. I hope that Doctors Union can move its steps much faster with your fuel. We have been waiting so long and the light is still far away.

If we have to function as a Trade Union in future, our muscle depends very much on our members' support. Doctors are as clever as their patients in that they are always complaining - they want the service but refuse to "pay". We are all grown up individuals, the Union can only bring forward the grievances of her members to the Authorities concerned or to the press if this cannot be solved in-house. Moreover, the support of her members for a Trade Union is most essential. This does not only means financial support but real, moral and other supports in all fronts from all our members.

Dr. Yeung Chiu Fat, Henry

*Results of surveys on Mandatory CME for non-specialists

會員通訊1984號 3.4.2001

會長通訊 － 唯我獨專的醫委會專業表現小組

「西醫聯會只得一千多個會員唧 …」，「西醫聯會的會員屬於很特別的一群而她的意見一點代表性也沒有…」，「只有二百人回應中大多數反對設立專業表現委員會（PPC），要問問其他一千多人，我想這些過千個的人該是贊同設立的了… 哈哈」，「在1999年醫委會曾作過一個關於強制性CME的調查，而結果是大多數贊成*，而且我們仍未有實施強制性CME …。所以，為何要去聆聽西醫聯會所要求而停止設立PPC…」。

這些就是醫委會主席於2001年3月7日醫委會政策會議中對本聯會的評語。醫委會主席及其他成員貶低西醫聯會的代表性，且連對我們的調查報告完全置之不理。他們更對於2000年12月20日醫委會第六次公開論壇上我們同業對於專業表現小組的反對置之不理。一個成員甚至批評本會的意見書內的論點不合邏輯，全無意義。本人對他身為聯會會員而慨嘆。

我建議由醫委會向全醫學界作全體記名的調查，徵詢關於PPC的設立，但我失敗了，原因是很明顯。會議中我再次沮喪，當就「醫委會應否按PPC研究小組的進度報告而設立PPC」投票時，只有三人投反對票，包括我，謝鴻興醫生及一位香港醫學會提名的委員，議案是八對三通過了。一部份支持議案的委員相信，若被投訴者懷疑犯有專業失德時PPC的調查結果是不會向初步偵訊小組透露，但是我懷疑醫務委員會這樣做法會否令到公眾，尤其是投訴者滿意。

又是強制性CME

你可能已看到隨著本通訊寄上本人致香港醫務委員會主席的一封關於強制性CME公開信，看來事態發展得很快，而完全違背本會大多數會員的意見。讓我再一次重申實施強制性CME對所有醫生的意義和後果。

1. 如果不遵照醫委會CME的規定，任何醫生不論專科與否是會被在醫生名冊中除名。
2. 因為資源是有限，強制性CME若缺乏由全體醫生高昂的補貼，便不能推行。而本人最擔心CME活動會被壟斷。
3. 強制性CME一旦施行，延續專業發展C.P.D. 跟著全體重新考試的路，便不遠了。

那麼我們應該怎樣？應否再來一個簽名運動？這些運動最終是否會被掉進醫委會的廢紙箱裡。有沒有其他好的建議？或者我們還是做個好孩子，不哼一聲好了？又或者我們要像教師們大聲疾呼呢？決定全看大家的意見！

聯會需要你的支持

聯會的主要責任是保障會員的權益。如果大家想本會能更好地替你們服務的話，你們要表示對聯會的支持。獲得大家鼎力支持，我們才能像教協般成功保障會員利益。若不然，會員遲早會失望地一個個離開。我希望用你們的熱忱去加快推動聯會的會務。我們期待已久，但光明仍是遙遠。

若將來要改成為工會運作，我們的力量全靠會員的支持。有些醫生也學到病人一樣的聰明 ─ 他們要服務，但不肯「付出」。大家均是成年人，聯會只能把我們心中的屈結向當權者申訴，若專業自己也無法解決時，只有向新聞界訴求。再者，對一個工會來說，會員的支持是最為重要。這並非祇是經濟方面的支持，而是全體會員在各前線上的真正、道義、精神上及其他的支持。

楊超發醫生

*非專科醫生的強制性CME調查結果