Upholding ethics and integrity - but of course money trumps values

MOST (if not all) organisations maintain a code of ethics that serve not only as an external statement of corporate values but also an internal guide to the standards of integrity and professional conduct expected of staff, or even close business partners.

Many an employee who was found to have breached rules of conduct would minimally be subject to disciplinary action, if not termination. But what if the person in question is a key contributor to the business - and who also happens to be a doctor, of whom perhaps the highest standards of professional conduct would be expected?

These questions and more arise in the case of the allegations that colorectal surgeon Julian Ong and psychiatrist Chan Herng Nieng colluded to take advantage of vulnerable female patients. The authorities' seeming silence on the case is now deafening.

The Ministry of Health and the Singapore Medical Council (SMC) must do far more to ensure that the safety of patients is not compromised. They should also closely examine the appropriateness of incentive structures for doctors at enterprises such as HC Surgical Specialists - which employs Dr Ong and owns 70 per cent of his practice - to ensure that they promote desirable outcomes for society and effectively deter bad behaviour by doctors.

A woman lodged a complaint of misconduct to the SMC against the two doctors in June 2018. This led to a defamation suit by Dr Ong, which was dismissed last month. The SMC said once it became aware of the judgement in the defamation suit - ie 22 months since the complaint - it obtained signed undertakings from Dr Chan and Dr Ong to refrain from contacting female patients for purposes outside the scope of their medical practice, pending the completion of the disciplinary process against them.

There also appears to be no incentive for HC Surgical to properly investigate Dr Ong, whose practice contributed 17 per cent to its revenue and 13 per cent to its profits for the six months to Nov 30, 2019. The group has erstwhile staunchly maintained its support for Dr Ong. Tellingly, HC Surgical said late last month that none of Dr Ong's patients have switched doctors.

Last year, HC Surgical increased its stake in Dr Ong's practice from 51 per cent to 70 per cent, despite being aware of the complaints against him. To protect itself, HC Surgical obtained a put option that it can exercise in the event that Dr Ong's employment is terminated. It has also agreed to acquire the remaining 30 per cent of his practice at a price linked to its earnings for the financial year to May 31, 2021, which should incentivise him to work as hard as possible for the company. The group now says that the put option, if exercised, would return, at the very least, more than it has paid for the 70 per cent of Dr Ong's practice. And Dr Ong will have to give his patients a "statement of facts" on the SMC complaint against him for them to read and give their signed consent. In other words, pending the SMC's decision on the case, Dr Ong - despite getting the company's name in the headlines for all the wrong reasons - remains a prized partner of HC Surgical.

And yes, the SMC meanwhile, is apparently still dithering on any disciplinary action against the doctors in what ought to be a clear-cut case - there is prima facie a breach of the SMC Ethical Code and Ethical Guidelines. The interests of patients must be protected.