Chch man fights medical complaints procedure

Press, 18 December 1976, Page 23

Chch man fights medical complaints procedure

By ALAN KNOWLES A pamphlet recently published by the New Zealand Medical Association outlines how easily a complaint against one of its members can be laid before its disciplinary committees. But one Christchurch complainant regards this procedure as unfair, and proposes changes to the Medical Practitioners Act as a result.

The pamphlet says the complaint should be set out clearly and simply in a letter and sent to the general secretary of the association. A disciplinary committee would then investigate all aspects of the complaint.

“Then it will decide whether your complaint is justified and, if so, will have the matter put right,” says the pamphlet, which is available from any doctor.

The act stipulates that the N.Z.M.A. establish one central disciplinary committee and divisional disciplinary committees in each province. The divisional committees deal with local complaints, but the larger issues are handed to the central committee, which has greater powers of censure.

The association is attempting to make the complaints procedure as simple as possible by publishing the pamphlet and in submitting remits to Parliament. The complexity and frustrations of the 'medical complaints system have become painfully apparent to Mr C. A. Ward of Linwood. For the last two years he has been battling with disciplinary committees on behalf of his wife. Mr Ward claimed that, because of the “incompetent and negligent

inaction” of a specialist, the opportunity for alternative action was lost. He made a formal complaint about the professional competence of the specialist to the disciplinary committee, but lost the case.

The committee found “that having regard to the stati nature of the symptoms and signs experienced by Mrs Ward while under the care of the specialist, and also having regard to the rarity of the particular tumor and its vagaries in presentation and course, that the specialist’s diagnosis and investigation of Mrs Ward’s case were reasonable and adequate.” This finding did not satisfy Mr Ward, who planned to appeal against it. However, the 28 days within which the appeal has to be made, under the Medical Practitioners Act 1968, was not sufficient to enable Mr Ward to find a lawyer to represent him and so the matter lapsed. Mr Ward’s battle with the N.Z.M.A. began with a letter of complaint to the Canterbury branch early in 1975, and he was told that the matter could not be dealt with by the ethical or disciplinary com* mittees. In December of the same year he sent another letter of complaint to the chairman of the association in Wellington. This letter was handed to the disciplinary committee, which heard the case and finally made a decision in June this year.

As a result of these experiences, Mr Ward has written to the Minister of Health (Mr Gill) proposing several changes to the act as it relates to medical

disciplinary committees. He proposes that the time limit for appeals be deleted, as the 28 days was too short; The act states that the costs of operating the disciplinary committees should be met partly by the N.Z.M.A. and partly by a grant from Parliament, Mr W’ard criticises this, asking why the taxpayer should pay the costs of the committee when the complainant had to pay his own. The costs would prevent many citizens from filing complaints, claims Mr Ward, who suggests some fir/.ncial assistance to the complainants. The chairman of the Canterbury Divisional Disciplinary Committee (Mr James Ardagh) said that expenses were awarded to some complainants at the hearings. “Even if a doctor is found not guilty, he mav have to pay .costs.” This was the case last year when a charge was

dismissed against a doctor, and he still had to pay $3OO costs to the complainant. If a doctor is found guilty of professional misconduct, the committee can order him to pay not more than $2OO to the association. Mr Ward regards this as too small a deterrent, and suggests that the figure should be $lOOO. The act states that in an appeal it is not permissible to “recall witnesses or call other witnesses.” This was restrictive and undemocratic, said Mr Ward. It gave the complainant no room to justify his appeal. z However, Mr Ardagh points out that the committees were statutory bodies and that all appeals to obtain a signed account from his doctor when complaining about a fee.

had to be made to existing evidence. Mr Ward’s final suggested amendment to the act is that the committees should have two nonmedical members. Committees consisting exclusively of medical practitioners were not conducive to public confidence in its findings. Non-medical members would give a fair appraisal of the situation without bias, said Mr Ward in his letter to Mr Gill.

This possibility was already being considered by the N.Z.M.A. said Mr Ardagh. But he vehemently

denies any suggestions that the committees are lenient or biased because they are judging their fellow practitioners. “We are tough on our own colleagues, and if anything we err on the side of the patient,” he said. Justice had to be seen to be done, and if it was not, the whole profession would suffer.

The Canterbury committee heard about 20 cases a year, and most of them concerned doctors’ fees. But there were complaints involving matters of law and the behaviour of docotrs. A complaint lodged last year concerned a doctor who attended a patient at home on a Sunday afternoon wearing shorts and an open-neck shirt. The complaint was dismissed. Another complaint was made about a doctor who “blew his top” after answering an urgent call to a sick man on a week-end because the man was “at the pub” when he called.

Thus the disciplinary committees deal with their fair share of cranky and unreasonable com* plainants. But, despite this, the N.Z.M.A. is trying to simplify the complaints procedure, and has two remits before Parliament at present to this effect.

The remits, which were proposed by the Canterbury branch, seek to delete the clause of the act which makes it compulsory for a complainant