Allow me to join Prof. J. Muscat in commenting on the events concerning a British tourist turned patient while on holiday in Malta.
I have been following the story as published in the online versions of Maltese newspapers. From this source of information, I get the impression that the respective complaints were in the first place directed against St Philip's Hospital and against a physician who was called to see the patient.
A further complaint was that the patient was kept in a corridor bed for hours after transfer from St Philip's to St Luke's.
It is no surprise that "the loudest and most repetitive protestations" (October 4) came from St Philip's Hospital. It is important to realise, however, that the protestations were, under the described circumstances, ethical, licit and legitimate.
A hospital in-patient admittance lasting 36 hours means an occupation of two "bed days" and it is therefore not unethical to charge for two "bed days".
The bills for treatment made public by the patient do not essentially differ from a European standard for private hospitals. Hence, I cannot share Prof. Muscat's statement that "the director and CEO of St Philip's rides piggy back on British insurance."
It seems appropriate to me that the authorities responsible for, and in St Luke's should explain why a privately insured British patient did not get better hospital accommodation at St Luke's.
In the same period as the story of the British patient appeared in the newspapers, St Luke's reputation also had to tackle the case of a young Norwegian student, who died there under tragic circumstances, and the case of a television set falling on a post-operative patient, who hours later, as reported, died of natural causes.
I spent my professional life as a doctor in a country with a compulsory social and medical insurance system primarily based on solidarity among the insured persons, but providing also a room for additional private insurance.
Charges for medical treatment are agreed on between the insurance companies and associations of doctors, who have respective contracts with the insurance companies.
Doctors and hospitals treating private patients are nowadays allowed to charge a fee corresponding to 2.3 times the "normal" fee. When I started practising in Germany 33 years ago, one was allowed to charge private patients up to six times the "normal" fee! The fees for treatment as made public by the British patient cannot be considered as exorbitant at any level.
The Medical Council in Germany that was responsible for me was elected by the registered doctors in the council's area of jurisdiction.
No council members were appointed by government or other bodies. Complaints with regard to unethical professional conduct or malpractice are dealt with by a special commission/court within the council.
Leading judges from the civil courts are members of the commission/court. The Medical Council is therefore indeed democratic and representative, as well as an adequate regulatory tool.
Patients in Germany have their own organisations, with eminent lawyers who are specialised in medico-legal affairs.
Transparency and impartiality can, in this way, be excellently assured without the necessity of having patients' representatives in a Medical Council.
I cannot share Prof. Muscat's contention that a Medical Council "cannot be expected to regulate effectively" if "the ordinary citizen has no representation and no voice in it".