Authors (including presenting author) :
CHAN TK
Affiliation :
Nuclear Medicine Unit, Queen Elizabeth Hospital
Introduction :
The Hospital Authority (HA) in Hong Kong has a policy in place to forbid HA doctors from recommending a specific private healthcare provider (PHP) where patients are referred to private healthcare sector for follow-up management, even upon patient’s request and even when The HA does not provide a list of qualified PHPs. A recent local court judgment upheld the legitimacy of the policy.
Objectives :
This article seeks to reflect on the policy from legal and ethical perspectives.
Methodology :
Relevant law and ethics were reviewed. A normative analysis was performed.
Result & Outcome :
Findings:
It is in the patients’ interests to be provided The Information (of a specific PHP who in the knowledge of the referring HA doctor has the skills and competence to provide the onward care). Even when there is financial or intimate relationship between the referring doctor and recommended PHP, disclosing The Information altogether with disclosure of the relationship should be favoured over withholding The Information. The policy to curtail patients’ legitimate right to The Information on the fragile basis of avoiding perceived conflict may fall short of public expectations for HA doctors to duly discharge their duties to care for the sick.
Conclusion:
The policy unfairly calls into question the integrity of HA doctors while weighing patients’ interest too lightly on the balance. The notion of perceived conflict of interests is arguably conceived only for administrative purposes, with the public being the scapegoat and the patients bearing the consequences. This will unlikely withstand the test of proportionality in a court of law or ethical deliberation.
