政壇：睇社論學英文：杏林頻生風化案 醫醫相護何時了

二○○九年，屯門醫院急症室一名醫生因非禮十五歲女病人被判監禁九個月，出獄後在私營診所執業一年零八個月才面臨醫委會聆訊。雖然醫委會認為事件屬於專業失當，情節嚴重，但考慮到心理報告顯示被告重犯機會微，所以輕判他停牌一年，緩刑三年，緩刑期間，被告可在資深醫生監察下繼續行醫。

首先令人質疑的是，有關案件拖延近三年才作出裁決，醫委會未能發揮監察醫生、保護病人的應有作用。正如病人及婦女團體批評，醫委會的聆訊嚴重滯後，未能與法庭同步，被告得以在「真空期」內「戴罪行醫」，對女性病人毫無保障，萬一期間再次出事，試問醫委會如何面對受害者？

同樣令人費解的是，醫委會承認案件情節嚴重，最終卻作出輕判。眾所周知，醫生肩負救死扶傷的重任，時常接觸病人身體，公眾對其道德操守的要求遠高於其他行業。知法犯法，罪加一等，不管從哪個方面看，行醫者利用公眾信任，乘職務之便侵犯病人，都是不可饒恕的惡劣行為，醫委會以「重犯機會微」為由讓被告繼續行醫，實在難以服眾。這種輕描淡寫的裁決，被指「醫醫相護」，不足為奇。

When will the medical profession stop its blind defence of doctors as the number of sexual offence rises in the healthcare sector?

In 2009, a doctor working in the Accident and Emergency Department of Tuen Mun Hospital was sentenced to 9 months’ imprisonment because of indecently assaulting a 15-year-old female patient. After serving his term, the doctor had worked in a private clinic for 1 year and 8 months before he faced the Medical Council's disciplinary inquiry. Although the Medical Council found him guilty of professional misconduct and the case was serious, after considering his psychological assessment which stated it was highly unlikely that he would recommit the offence, the Council handed down a lenient sentence of suspending his licence for 1 year, with 3 years’ probation. During the probation, the defendant was allowed to continue to practise under the supervision of a senior doctor.

The first point to be queried is the procrastination of the ruling for almost 3 years. The Medical Council has not performed its function of monitoring doctors and protecting patients. Just as patients’ groups and women's organizations criticized, the Medical Council's inquiry was gravely delayed and it was not synchronized with the relevant court hearing. As a result, the defendant doctor was able to keep on practising during this “vacuum period”, exposing female patients to unnecessary risks. If another undesirable incident happens, how can the Medical Council face the victim?

Another point that is equally incomprehensible is the lenient sentence passed by the Medical Council despite its acknowledgement that it was a serious case. As we all know, doctors shoulder the great responsibility of healing the wounded and comforting the dying. They need to touch patients’ bodies routinely. People have a much higher expectation of doctor's morality than they do to other professionals. A person who knowingly violates the law deserves to have his penalty doubled. No matter from which angle one looks at it, it is an unforgivably bad conduct if a medical practitioner sexually harasses his patient by taking advantage of his duty and people's trust in him. The Medical Council failed to convince the public why it was highly unlikely for the defendant doctor to recommit the offence and thus he was allowed to continue to practise. With such a “casual” judgment, it is no wonder that people have always believed doctors would indiscriminately defend their fellow doctors.

重要生字

Accident and Emergency Department n. 急症室

indecent assault vt.非禮

procrastination vt. 拖延