Share
The Medical Council of Hong Kong (the Medical Council) recently published two decisions regarding impermissible practice promotion on social media and via a magazine article respectively. The doctors involved in these two decisions were both found guilty of professional misconduct.
Case 1: Practice promotion on social media (MC 22/664)
Background
In this case, the wife of a general surgeon managed a social media page that showcased the defendant doctor’s daily life and clinic activities. As the clinic manager, she shared details about patients’ medical conditions, posted photos of the defendant doctor in surgical attire within the operating theatre, and highlighted letters of gratitude and gifts from patients. These posts were publicly accessible for approximately two years until the defendant doctor requested their removal.
For instance, in one post, the defendant doctor was described to have exercised his ‘skill and caution’ so that the patient did not experience common post-operative side effects including voice hoarseness or limb paralysis. Another post described his extensive experience in the removal of lipoma.
Decision
The Medical Council considered that as a medical practitioner, the defendant doctor had a professional responsibility to ensure that both he and his staff complied with the Medical Council’s Code of Professional Conduct for the Guidance of Registered Medical Practitioners (the Code). It was held that he had failed to prevent the publication of promotional statements and patients’ medical information on the social media page.
Sentencing
The defendant doctor was sentenced to a three-month removal from the General Register, to be suspended for 12 months, for two charges of practice promotion and publication of patients’ medical information. In considering the sentence, the Medical Council took into account as mitigating factors, the doctor’s commitment to educating his clinic staff about the Code, particularly regarding information dissemination and practice promotion, and the likelihood of re-offending being low.
Case 2: Practice promotion via a magazine article (MC 22/359)
Background
In this instance, the defendant doctor, an infectious disease specialist, participated in an interview with a pharmaceutical company, in which he was invited to publish an article about medical treatment for HIV patients. The resulting article, published in Chinese, repeatedly referred to the doctor as a “good doctor”. This appeared in the title of the article (which was in a large font size). The article also described the doctor as being innovative and adventurous, and drew comparisons to “good” doctors depicted in a television series. It stated that he was the first doctor in Hong Kong to choose the field of infectious disease, suggesting his superiority over other practitioners. Additionally, it noted that he had recently begun his private practice.
The defendant doctor received a draft of the article, and while he proposed revisions, the magazine published it before he could remove the reference to the television series, which he felt promoted himself.
Decision
The Medical Council concluded that, despite the article not being published entirely upon the defendant doctor’s proposal, he had amended it and thus had actual knowledge of the promotional statements it contained. Other promotional statements remained in the article beyond those referencing the television series. The Medical Council found that the article was certainly practice promotional, which was impermissible, and that he had engaged in practice promotion by sanctioning, acquiescing in or failing to take steps to prevent the publication.
Sentencing
Taking into consideration that the defendant took relevant Continuing Medical Education courses on practice promotion and stated that he would seek legal advice and carefully review articles on health education before publication, the Medical Council deemed the risk of re-offending to be low. He was removed from the General Register for one month, with the operation of the order to be suspended for three months.
Comment
In view of the recent decisions, medical practitioners are reminded that the duty to prevent impermissible publication on them is a particularly onerous one. Even without the direct involvement or express permission of the individual practitioner to publish the promotional materials, they may still be held accountable for sanctioning, acquiescing in or failing to take adequate steps to prevent the publication.
Healthcare
Hong Kong