Medical Council stands firm over doctor's fine

B Falzon

Jul 9th 2009, 18:23

Congratulations are due to all the member of the Medical Council for the appropriate decision taken against Frank Portelli. In their opinion this doctor needed to learn a lesson. The medical profession will be better off without arrogance.

Frank Portelli 2BFRANK

Jul 8th 2009, 22:22

Clearly the Malta Medical Council is not up to date on the safeguards provided to all Professionals under Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights

FRANKOWICZ - vs. - Poland (No 53025/99)

Facts: Dr Frankowicz was found guilty of unethical conduct by the Polish Medical Council for having expressed a critical opinion in writing on a colleague

Dr Frankowicz appealed to the court of Human Rights

The European Court ruled in favour of Doctor Frankowicz and against the Polish Medical Council.

Law: The Court stated that professional practice was protected by Article 10.

Decision: - The Medical Council’s conviction of Dr Frankowicz for having expressed a critical opinion on a colleague amounted to a breach of the right to freedom of expression.

“To ban criticism of colleagues was liable to discourage medical practitioners from providing patients with an objective opinion and so could compromise the very purpose of the medical profession - namely to protect the health and life of patients”.

Conclusion: Violation of Article 10 (unanimously).

Dr Frankowicz was awarded EUR 3,000

Dr Frank Portelli

J Martinelli

Jul 8th 2009, 20:33

So, the Prime Minister appointed five on the Medical Council of whom only four have a vote. What really matters is that the council mixed up business and medical ethics.

As far as the business side is concerned, and Dr. Portelli acted as a CEO (not Chief Medical Officer) of St. Philip's, then the council had no business sticking its nose in the hospital's billing procedures.

Had Dr. Portelli as a physician acted unprofessionally, then the Medical Council would have been within its rights to intervene. But he didn't, so striking Dr. Portelli off its register unless he pays the fine is a nonstarter.

Moreover, the Medical Council has never issued a schedule of fees to be charged by hospitals and worse, it never explained how it came up with a 10,000 euro fine.

Answers to these questions will surely be obtained once the case is heard in court. The Medical Council should rethink its position which will no doubt embarrass it and cost it unnecessary expenses.

maria busuttil

Jul 8th 2009, 16:00

May I ask why the Medical Council why they want to strike off Dr Portelli? I would understand if he did something wrong with a patient, that is ill treated or did not treat a patient well yes I would understand but not because of what he wrote as CEO, Need an answer regarding this, so let us say he must be fined for what he wrote but cannot be struck of as he did not do anything wrong with or on a patient. So again I ask The Medical Council you cannot struck off Dr Portelli, as he has done no harm with his patients,or is it that you are all jealous of all his capability, MC you can struck off any doctor only if they do not treat or ill treat a patient.

Also yes I do believe that the PN goverment first uses you and then he kicks you on your back side and I am positive of this. How right you are Mr. Ganni,

Vince Borg

Jul 8th 2009, 15:41

@ Gianni Xuereb

I think you watch too much TV!
These are the people who sit on the Medical Council of Malta.

President (Appointed by the Prime Minister)
Judge Dr Josella Farrugia LL.D

Members (Appointed by the Prime Minister)
Dr John Felice B.Ch.D
Dr Alex Magri M.D

Member (Appointed by the University of Malta)
Prof. Godfrey Laferla FRCS.

Members (Elected by Medical Practitioners)
Dr Doreen Cassar MD
Dr.Brian Flores Martin MD
Dr.Alex Portelli MD
Dr Michael J. Boffa MD.,MRCP.,MSc., T(Derm) FRCP
Dr. Paul Soler MD.,MRCP

Members (Elected by Dental Surgeons)
Dr James Galea B.Ch.D.,FDS.,RCS.
Dr Anthony Charles B.Ch.D.

Members Representing the Public (Appointed by the Prime Minister)
Mr Charles Messina
Ms Anna Abela

Dealla Wainwright

Jul 8th 2009, 14:43

A medical council must be careful not to associate itself with Political views nor defend actions on members who have a reputation of overcharging, as is clear in this case and has not been contested by Dr B for the past 10 Years. So how come the Council is embarking on this minefield?

A CEO of a business, who happens to also be a highly respected Physician in both UK & Malta , cannot be accused over his role to defend his business's reputation, by the medical council, dressed up as an issue between two doctors. Where is the Malpractice by Dr P to justify this action?

Members of such councils owe a duty to their members and to the patients they promise to care for. Tit for Tat is not the part of a respected Medical Council, so your action has consequently started you off on a slippery slope ( Dr Portelli has thrown in a lifeline - which, of course the council would not like to lose face and refer to it as a threat) So stop and withdraw, because you (current council) have no right to bring the association into disrepute.

Dr. Della Wainwright
HSE College Ltd
della@hsecollege.com

Joe Portelli

Jul 8th 2009, 14:19

If I may add one other observation its this, Dr P has been far too generous in offering a chance for the council to withdraw. The reason I say this, is that there is clear signs that some reputation is getting harmed now through the councils action.

My action would be, to apply from a judge, and serve an interlocutory injuction on each council member and breach of this order would result in penal punishment. This would ensure a stop to further reputation damage. Meantime if the council wish to fight the injuction they would have the right as the onus is on the person that get the Judge to serve, to prove teh injunction is necessary.

This sort of thing must stop. Just because one is a member of a council, one must realise they are under individual responsibility before agreeing on serious accusations.

As for the Physician who's practices are in question, Dr B - he should refund back all the money he made from sick people and which action was damaging the CEO (Dr P) and his Hospital - why has he taken 10 years , is it because it is the right Political timing?

Gianni Xuereb

Jul 8th 2009, 14:10

@Leo Said: Good point!

"Five of thirteen council members have been directly appointed by the Prime Minister."... It's more than 5 believe me. There are two other members not appearing on the list, both appointed by the Prime Minister. One is a doctor and one is a dentist. For some unknown "Russian style" reason they are hidden from the list. That makes it 7. Anohter member represents University of Malta. Who finances the UOM ? The Government. That makes it 8 in all. What does this mean ? The goverment has ABSOLUTE control of this council.

What's going on between Frank Portelli and the government ? Who knows! Maybe the fact that he didn't turn up for the conference after the 8th June election irritated someone ? I'm just asking.......

Joe Portelli

Jul 8th 2009, 12:57

At the bottom of this issue, there is a conflict between value system that sees a Medical Council's contribution in terms of helping physicians do better in what they already do and the value system that is orientated towards making a quick buck, at the expense of the Hospital where a physician serves. Perhaps the physician that was dismissed by the CEO should have considered the Hospitals reputation first.

How a Medical Council willingly gets involved in such murky dealings is a mystery. However the mystery deepens , if the a physician feels he has been defamed he has a right to seek redress, so why is the Council pre judging this issue - if Dr P was to pay the fine, then the physician could use this action as acceptance of guilt and so on. So Dr P , seems to me has sent a message, loud and clear that he will have no choice by attack.

He will have patients support as evidence

In addition, should some the proof of defamation itself becomes an issue, the patients that were cheated by the Councils protected physician will give evidence in support to prove this and supporting Dr P action.

Leo Said

Jul 8th 2009, 11:04

Quote: "....... the council condemned any threats made against its members and insisted that all of them had to carry out their job with integrity and honesty".

It seems to me that "integrity and honesty" are not being contested in this issue. I would rather believe that the parameter "diligence" is of more importance.

I have read the compete text of the original press release issued by Frank Portelli. The press release is available at: http://2bfrank4u.com/

Of course, the licit expression of a legitmate intention to seek redress can, per definition, always be interpreted as a threat.

However, and nonetheless, it is bewildering that a council, which has been constituted in alignment with current legislation, and with an active judge as its president, deems it necessary to condemn a citizen's right to express an intention to seek redress.

If Frank Portelli should win his case after resorting to the civil courts of justice, I believe that the cost of any damages, which the civil court would acknowledge, would have to be borne by the government (of the day). Five of thirteen council members have been directly appointed by the Prime Minister.