 |
 |
 |
|
How many times have we opened our newspapers, to read of a patient who waited for an eternity at the A&E department and nearly died, or was overcharged by an unscrupulous doctor or hospital? Too many I'm sure. And our first, almost natural, response is, "What! How could that happen!" And our respect for the medical profession goes down a notch, our faith in the Singapore health care system slips an inch. The next day, or maybe two or three later, a reply comes in. Formal, sympathetic, apologetic even. Hands up now, those amongst us, who even bother to read it. After all, won't it be the usual officious drivel? Well, by putting up a few of the more colourful complaints and pointed rebuttals on this page, I hope to provoke you to read these complaint letters with a more critical eye in future. Here are a few questions I challenge you with, as you read each letter below. (1) Is the writer telling the truth? While blatant lies are rare, does the information seem one sided, or are there gaps in the story to suggest that facts have been omitted? Why do we automatically assume that everything that is printed in black and white must be true? (Do you think the forum editor independently checks out the facts of the lettter before publication?) (2) Do the issues raised make sense? Is there a clear stream of thought? Are the points in the arguement connected and logical? (3) What does the writer hope to achieve? Raise awareness of a systemic shortfall in the hope others do not suffer the same fate? Hope to skew public policy towards people? Gets things off his chest? Perhaps the satisfaction of seeing a hospital CEO apologise in a national newspaper? Or more practically, perhaps his hospital bill waived? (4) Have any suggestions or corrections been proposed? Are they practical or feasible? Will there be any impact on other patients, public finances, or equality? (5) Does the author represent a majority (or minority) point of view? And why has the newspaper chosen to publish this letter? Is it related to a current topic or issue? Is it because the writer is a someone well-known or an authority on the issue? Or is the letter well-written, inflammatory, or sensationalistic (and therefore highly readable and possibly even entertaining)? I'm not saying that every complaint is fallacious, or that people are all whiners. All I'm hoping is, that in future, when we read such letters (and not just medical ones), it behooves us to at least analyse each one critically, and not just accept everything we read at face value. So to get you started, the reply to each letter is intially hidden. When you're ready, hit the "Click here to view the reply" (requires javascript to be enabled) and see if you've anticipated everything the rebuttal had to say. It may yet surprise you. Gerald |
| Return to top |
|
MY FATHER, Ang Teong Hui, was admitted recently to Changi General Hospital, where he was diagnosed with a mild stroke. However, his condition deteriorated and he fell into a coma on the same day. The doctors did various tests on him and took scans of his brain where they eventually found the cause of his deteriorating condition. However, the last scan - an MRI - was done a day after he was admitted, after the doctors felt that he might not pull through and needed the scan urgently. When asked why the scan was not done earlier, the doctor replied that it was bad luck on my father's part as MRI scans were not done on weekends. After my father was transferred out of the intensive-care unit to a normal ward, we asked one of the nurses why such a piece of state-of-the-art equipment was not used on weekends. The nurse replied that it was unfair to recall the doctors just to do the scan because weekends were supposed to be their rest days. Well, if it was unfair for the doctors to work on weekends, was it fair for my father to be denied treatment on a weekend, especially when the situation was so crucial? My father died on Oct 8, aged 53, and there is nothing my family and I can do to bring him back. But I would like to make it known to Changi General Hospital and the relevant government departments that attitudes such as those mentioned above were incorrect. Ang Yu Ying (Ms) The Straits Times Oct 29, 2004 Click here to view the reply I REFER to the letter, 'No MRI on weekends, blame it on 'bad luck' (ST, Oct 29), by Ms Ang Yu Ying. Our deepest condolences go to Ms Ang's family for the loss of her father, Mr Ang Teong Hui. We have since contacted Ms Ang's elder sister - Ms Ang Yu Ying is away from Singapore - to address their concerns. Mr Ang was admitted to Changi General Hospital (CGH) on Sept 25, a Saturday. Based on his symptoms and pre-existing medical conditions, he was diagnosed to have suffered a stroke. The neurologist-on-call immediately started anti-coagulation treatment to manage his condition. Mr Ang was managed by a neurologist throughout his stay. He had two CT scans done on an urgent basis on his admission which confirmed the stroke. CT scans are used as a first line to confirm if a stroke has occurred. An urgent MRI scan was also done on Sunday to confirm the clinical diagnosis of a brain-stem stroke. As Mr Ang had already been diagnosed with a stroke, his treatment would not have changed with the CT and MRI findings. We apologise to Ms Ang and her family if our doctor had miscommunicated that MRIs are not available on weekends. We agree that all our staff should communicate to patients professionally and with empathy. CT scans and MRIs are available at anytime, including weekends and public holidays. Our radiologists and radiographers are on call 24 hours a day to attend to urgent requests. We would like to assure the public that no one will be denied essential services at CGH. We thank Ms Ang for the opportunity to clarify her concerns. If further clarification is needed, please call Ms Lim Puay Keng on 6850-2732. T. K. Udairam Chief Executive Officer Changi General Hospital Nov 3, 2004 |
| Return to top |
|
A DOCTOR in Jurong West who sued a patient's sister for libel over claims she made in a letter to Lianhe Zaobao about his medical conduct, has settled the matter after the woman offered an apology. Dr Chuang Wei Ping, who took bank executive Tham Sook Leng to court, said outside the courtroom yesterday that Madam Tham has agreed to publish an apology and retraction in the Chinese language daily and The Straits Times. 'I feel I've been vindicated,' the 54-year-old said. 'I didn't do this for money. I was doing this for everybody in the service profession.' Madam Tham's letter, saying the doctor had acted unprofessionally, was published on April 11, 2001, in the paper's letters page with the headline: 'A horrendous encounter with a doctor during consultation'. In it, she recounted that on March 30 that year, she had accompanied her younger sister, Singapore Armed Forces dental supervisor Tania Tharm Sock Karn, 40, to see the doctor. Dr Chuang said that Madam Tham, despite not being medically trained, insisted he diagnose her sister's condition as chicken pox, and when he refused, resorted to libelling him. Although neither he nor his clinic was identified in the published letter, he said a crowd had witnessed the row between him and the sisters, and would know that the letter referred to him. The doctor, who had claimed an unspecified amount of damages, had testified that the Singapore Medical Council had obtained his clinic's name from the newspaper, investigated the complaint, and found it to be unfounded. A police officer told the court that the women were given a stern warning by the police for stealing Warrant Officer Tharm's clinic record card. Miss Tharm had consulted an SAF doctor and was prescribed an ointment for her rash. But Madam Tham was convinced her sister had chicken pox, so she took her to Dr Chuang's clinic. In her letter, the 45-year-old stated the doctor 'looked messy, tired and shabbily dressed' and was scratching himself. That at first, he was uninterested in the medicine prescribed by the SAF doctor, then took the ointment out of her sister's handbag without asking. She wrote that he offered no diagnosis and told her sister: 'I have no comment. Go back to your SAF doctor'. Dr Chuang had said that the sisters' real motive was to get him to diagnose Miss Tharm as having chicken pox so he would have to give her at least two weeks' medical leave. He also denied not offering a diagnosis. He said he told Miss Tharm that she had 'serious eczema', which was what the SAF doctor had said too. He added that the sisters had so far not produced any medical report proving his diagnosis was wrong. The Straits Times March 3, 2005 |
| Return to top |
|
Click here to view the reply I APPRECIATE <Name deleted> vexation over her child's skin condition in 'Doctor prescribed unsuitable rash cream' (ST, Feb 23). But her letter contains a few misperceptions. First, this was not the first time <Name deleted> had visited our clinic for her child's eczema. It was their third visit for the same condition. A steroid cream prescribed in a previous visit was obviously ineffective. In fact, <Name deleted> had mentioned that the rash was not responding to treatment elsewhere. As the eczema was severe, a second line medication like Elidel 1% or Protopic 0.03% is in order. This was a considered prescription and not a careless one as mentioned. The question is: Is Elidel safe in the dosage and duration prescribed? Elidel is an approved drug in Singapore, USA and other countries. When the US Food and Drugs Administration approved the drug in 2001, the studies were based on children two years and older. Since then, there have been published studies showing that Elidel is safe for use as a topical skin medication in children three months and older. As a result, the following countries have approved Elidel for use in children three months and older: Australia, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Malaysia, New Zealand, Pakistan, Philippines, and Thailand. In Singapore, a multicentre trial involving the National Skin Centre, Changi General Hospital and National University Hospital has been initiated to establish the efficacy and safety of Elidel 1% cream in infants. Perhaps this is why the Health Sciences Authority has not yet updated its recommendation for the use of Elidel 1% in young infants. Both steroids and Elidel work by suppressing the immune system. Theoretically, both could cause cancer. Indeed, oral and injectable steroids and Elidel have been implicated in studies to be carcinogens. However, the topical forms of these drugs have been found to be very safe in large-scale use. Topical steroids have been in use for decades while there are over seven million users of Elidel 1%. Studies have shown that such creams have minimal penetration beyond the skin and are not well absorbed into the body. I understand <Name deleted>'s frustration when her email went unanswered. But she had chosen to email Thomson Medical Centre instead of our clinic. We could have clarified the matter and saved her unnecessary worry. We would also have told her that I was called to attend to an emergency Caesarean section immediately after the consultation. It was unfortunate but my patients who have further queries will wait for my return, which takes up to 15 minutes. If this had upset her, I apologise. Dr Ang Poon Liat Feb 28, 2006 |
| Return to top |
|
MY CHILD was sick, down with a bad cough, sore throat, runny nose and a slight fever on Feb 16. At 9pm, our family doctor had left so we went to another private clinic - 'Street 11 Clinic' at Block 139 Tampines Street 11. After a brief consultation, she was given these medicines cough syrup (one bottle, 'Dhasedyl, 90ml'); a packet of 'Danzen' (20 tablets, 5mg) for the throat; 'Telfast D' (10 tablets) for runny nose and antibiotics 'Klacid MR' (five 500mg tablets for throat and nose). I was astonished when I received the bill. These medicines cost me $80. I am puzzled at the high cost because I believe that my daughter's symptoms were fairly common and she was treated by a locum. I feel the clinic had either overcharged and jacked up the price of common drugs, or did it give me unnecessarily expensive drugs for a common illness I asked the receptionist for a breakdown of the cost of the various medicines. To my surprise, the staff informed me that the five antibiotic tablets alone cost $37. I believe Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan had mentioned that affordable medicines be provided for patients at reasonable prices. Yet the clinic in our heartlands is charging drugs such as 'Klacid MR' at an exorbitant price. This is a worrying problem which I hope can be addressed to benefit the masses. Gan Siok Wah (Mdm) The Straits Times Feb 23, 2006 Click here to view the reply THERE are two issues in the letter by Mdm Gan Siok Wah in 'High prices for common drugs in HDB heartland' (ST, Feb 21). First, the alleged overcharging. I would like to clarify that the $80 bill includes both the consultation fee and the medication prescribed to her daughter. Her daughter was billed $22 for consultation fee for a visit at 9.20pm, when the Singapore Medical Association's recommendation to all clinics is $25 to $55 for consultation between 9pm and midnight. With regard to the five tablets of Klacid MR 500mg costing $37, the price charged at our clinic adheres closely to the recommended retail price set by Abbott Laboratories (S) Pte Ltd. Mdm Gan is at liberty to confirm the price with them at customer.services.sg@ abbot.com. Second, unnecessarily expensive medication. As Mdm Gan has chosen to breach doctor-patient confidentiality by going public with her daughter's medical condition, I would like to highlight the fact that she omits to mention that her daughter had the symptoms for five days prior to the consultation in my clinic and that she had been treated elsewhere for similar complaints without improvement. It is medically prudent to treat a patient with second line medication if the patient shows no improvement after treatment with first line medication. This was why her daughter was prescribed such medication by our clinic. I stand by the fact that our clinic did not overcharge Mdm Gan. Nor was her daughter given any unnecessary treatment. I would be most grateful if you can publish this to clarify the misconception that Mdm Gan's letter has created in the minds of the public. Dr Low Jin Kheng Clinic Manager Street 11 Clinic Feb 24, 2006 |
| Return to top |
CUSTOMER service is a two-way traffic. I refer to a clinic in Holland Road's vicinity which closes at midnight. Apparently, late patients were turned away and they complained. Put yourself in the clinic assistants' shoes. If the patients come at the last minute and each patient takes 15-20 minutes from registration to dispensing and issuing receipts, the clinic's staff and doctor will go home very late every day. It is not as if patients suddenly became sick at midnight. More often, it's because Singaporeans like to put off doing things until the last minute. One reader complained that her father was turned away at a clinic in Serangoon because its rules stipulate that only regular patients, and no new patients unless brought in by a regular, will be attended to on holidays. From the clinic's view, opening the clinic on public holidays is a service to loyal patients of the doctor. They are loath to accept patients who see their competitor doctors but take advantage of their clinic's services only when their regular clinics are closed. Another reader complained she was charged $80 for simple flu medicine. The doctor had prescribed Klacid MR, which is very expensive. The patient can always tell the clinic that he cannot afford such branded, expensive medicine. A face-saving way is to pay the consultation fee and ask for a prescription to buy the drugs at a pharmacy instead. There are doctors who charge a premium for using branded, expensive drugs and not generics, so the mark-up and consultation fees go up stratospherically. The message is: If you want good, strong medicine to cure you at one go without having to go back two or three times to the doctor, be prepared to pay for premium drugs. The range of fees for simple flu medicines can be from $17 in a common HDB clinic to $80 in 'high-class' GP outfits. It always pays to ask first. It's like this: You can have your hair cut at $8 by the neighbourhood's Indian barber or pay $100 at a high brow hair saloon. Lim Boon Hee The Straits Times Feb 24, 2006 (Gerald: The second half of the letter regarding overcharging for Klacid refers to the previous thread above.)
I AM shocked and read with disbelief Mr Lim Boon Hee's views in 'Doctors at fault? That's not always the case' (ST, Feb 24). I am not a medical doctor but I know what is professional ethics. To the man-in-the-street, a doctor's job is to save lives. When a clinic operates till midnight, it means that as long as the patients are at the clinic before midnight, the doctor has a duty and obligation to attend to them. If there are worries that the doctor and his staff will go home late, then don't operate until midnight. It's as simple as that. I was very shocked at Mr Lim's view in supporting the clinic operating during holidays and attending only to its regular customers. This is placing commercial considerations over everything else. My four children had taken Klacid MR when they were sick. But it was always the last resort before my family doctors prescribed it for my children, and only after other antibiotics fail to have any effect on their condition. Klacid MR is usually not prescribed on the first visit. I was told that where possible, we should let our body build up resistance rather than rely on antibiotics to fight the germs. Tay Sok Khoon Feb 25, 2006 (Gerald: The last two paragraphs about Klacid strikes me as a classic example of reading the initial letter and jumping to conclusions without seeing the whole picture. This behaviour was also evident in other discussion threads at the time. The clinic later replied that the patient already had symptoms for five days and was treated elsewhere without improvement. In my opinion, this demonstrates the damage that can be done to a clinic's reputation, even if a rebuttal is later published.)
I WAS shocked to read Mr Lim Boon Hee's letter about doctors who refused to treat patients (ST, Feb 24). He claims that the doctors can turn away patients at the clinic's closing hours. He is totally wrong. The medical profession is not like any other business. A convenience store owner can decline to sell to customers who knock at the shop's closing time but not a doctor. Every doctor takes a pledge that he will put the interests of the patients first. A doctor has a social, moral and legal duty to attend to a sick person at any time. Suppose a doctor refuses to treat a sick person because he has to go home and the patient dies. The doctor can be held responsible for it. Natarajan Nageswaran Feb 25, 2006 I CONCUR with Lim Boon Hee and feel that it is unfair to impute blame to the nurses at the clinic in Holland Village for not wanting to attend to two patients 18 minutes before closing time ('Doctors at fault? That's not always the case'; ST Forum, Feb 24). If the patients were in great pain, why did they not go straight to a hospital? I would have done this instead of going to a clinic which was about to close for the night. The nurses and doctors at the clinic are not immune to tiredness after working long hours. Had the tired doctor seen the two new patients in a hurry and prescribed the wrong medicine to them, what would happen to him? The Singapore Medical Council would surely take him to task for his negligence. Would the patients understand his plight and forgive him? Let us be fair and give our nurses and doctors a break. Nelson Quah Feb 28, 2006 I READ with interest 'Wrong to refuse any patient at closing hour' by Mr Natarajan Nageswaran. I'm a doctor in private practice and would like to clarify certain points he made. I believe most of my colleagues and I are reasonable and rational as are the majority of our patients. I don't think any doctor would turn away any patient at any time who is in obvious distress. Most of us have worked in the government before starting our own practices and we are used to dealing with emergencies at inopportune times. We are not so ridiculous as to expect patients to fall sick at times convenient to us. But we also don't believe that it is possible to feel unwell five minutes before the clinic's closing time. I don't think the issue is about the patient who has to turn to his doctor at a late hour. What I take issue with are patients who habitually turn up just before closing time. These patients are behaving in an inconsiderate manner. A healthy doctor-patient relationship has to be based on mutual respect and consideration. Certainly the Hippocratic Oath cannot be an excuse to withhold the common courtesies. I believe that doctors have a duty to attend to medical emergencies at all times but I'm afraid I will have to disagree with the assertion that I'm obliged to deal with any patient with any kind of complaint at anytime. Dr Sim Sze Keen Feb 28, 2006 I READ with sadness the letters about the ethics and practices of doctors: 'High prices for common drugs in HDB heartland' (ST, Feb 21); 'Wrong to refuse any patient at closing hour' and 'Doctor's duty to save lives, not watch the clock' (ST, Feb 25). When we are ill, we expect doctors to attend to us in a professional manner and abide by proper medical ethics. However, there is a fine line between receiving the help we need and demanding it regardless of circumstances. While it is true that a doctor has an obligation to attend to a sick person, do we first consider our own actions? Doctors are human too. They work long hours and serve many patients who may behave in a demanding and an unreasonable manner. They sometimes encounter verbal and even physical abuse from patients or their relatives when they cannot accede to their requests for a medical certificate, unnecessary medications, and for a shorter waiting period. Under the heavy load of seeing up to 80 patients a day for government doctors, they are still expected to be blameless in all medical procedures. In addition to seeing routine cases of cough and cold, they have to handle emergencies, manage complex medical cases and perform minor surgical procedures. Let us not publicly complain or accuse without a clear understanding of doctors and the constraints they face. We should also refrain from giving comments to the media on certain medications and their prices without clarification. If Singaporeans want to foster a more gracious culture, we ought to reflect on how we speak of one another in this 'me-first' society. So rather than be 'shocked' at the practices of doctors, let us view matters more objectively and with better understanding for all the parties involved. Then we can truly call ourselves a gracious and compassionate society. Adeline Ng Su Mei (Ms) Feb 28, 2006 I AM disgusted with the letters 'Wrong to refuse patient at closing hour' and 'Doctor's duty is to save lives, not watch the clock' (ST, Feb 25). Both preached the principles about a doctor's obligations. I wonder if they have missed the point completely in the rebuttal by Mr Lim Boon Hee. The fact is most patients go to a clinic for non-emergency conditions such as flu or common cold. Correct me if I am wrong. There is currently no strain of pathogen causing the influenza or common cold that's acutely present just a few minutes before midnight. Most of the patients would have been experiencing symptoms in the preceding hours and there is no reason for them to be attended to when they decide to turn up at the clinic at closing time. These patients should not blame others for their own procrastination. Closing time does not equate end of registration time. It is meant for the doctor to finish seeing cases that had the courtesy to present themselves in the ten to twenty minutes before closing time. Granted the rare situation where a patient presents himself at the clinic in an emergency, it is the doctor's right to refuse any other patient, subject to his judgment. In the same vein, if he refuses to see a patient who then collapses, it's his responsibility to bear. There's no need for the 'man in the street' to take the high ground and preach to a doctor his professional obligations. It is typical that patients here use rhetoric to justify their lack of consideration. In essence, it just seems wrong for the doctor to do anything that displeases the patient. Perhaps Singaporeans have their perception of reality tainted by medical dramas from Hollywood or Caldecott Hill which depict photogenic doctors going out on a limb to uphold the patients' interests. Let's keep it real and bear in mind that doctors are not individuals with super-human capabilities but are human beings who need a well-deserved rest at the end of a long day in the clinic. Tan Shian Ming Feb 28, 2006 I HAVE been reading with much interest the letters about whether doctors should refuse patients during closing hours. Frankly speaking, Singapore's medical services are world class compared to those in many developed countries. In Sweden, where I am living now, to see a doctor, one has to make an appointment with the clinic. Usually the appointment is one day after you have made the call. In Singapore, you can walk into a clinic any time and there are even 24-hour clinics available. For an emergency, there are many hospitals with Accident and Emergency departments. Why are we making such a big fuss? I am not saying doctors should refuse patients during closing hours. I believe nurses in clinics are able to tell if the patient requires immediate medical attention. And I believe that during an emergency doctors would help a patient. We should be making Singapore a better place to live in instead of quarrelling over such minor issues. Andrew Ang Chi Peng Sweden March 3, 2006 Return to top |
|
ON THE day the letter, 'Three-hour wait at KK's A&E Department' (ST, March 7), was published, my son too came down with vomiting, diarrhoea and fever. He experienced excessive thirst but would throw up shortly after drinking water. As he was showing signs of dehydration, my wife and I decided to take him to a hospital after midnight. Unfortunately, having missed reading the papers that day, we took him to KK Hospital in the belief that we could get immediate help at the 24-hour children's emergency ward. How wrong we were. Despite being put on the 'priority' list, it was only 1 1/2 hours later that we finally saw the doctor. The check-up was simple and was over in 15 minutes. We decided to admit him for observation, and for him to get some rest. Then came more drama. The admission process took some 40 minutes. I was asked to sign in some 10 different places, and the staff (whose English was hardly comprehensible) was going back and forth photocopying forms. Apparently, we could not send our son up to the room before all the forms were completed. It was close to 4am before he got to his bed. My wife fell sick the next morning. It seems hospitals here take more care of paperwork and payments than of the sick. The fact is that there will always be many cases which, although not life-and-death situations, cannot exactly wait until the next day. What should we do in such cases? I would also like to know if the Ministry of Health could publish statistics on waiting times in A&E wards. Also, whether there are any guidelines governing this. Agus Tirtoredjo The Straits Times March 23, 2006 Click here to view the reply I REFER to Mr Agus Tirtoredjo's letter and would like to address the concerns that he has regarding his visit to our Children's Emergency (CE) and our admission process. The CE is an accident-and-emergency service for children who are seriously ill or injured. Children with the most critical conditions are attended to first. Patients are triaged by trained nurses to identify and ensure that those who are more ill are attended to expeditiously. They are prioritised according to three categories of clinical urgency - urgent, moderately severe and less severe. The waiting time to consult a doctor corresponds to the severity of the illness and changes with the influx of seriously ill children. When Mr Tirtoredjo's son arrived at the CE, our nurses checked his vital signs. He was assessed to be clinically stable and categorised as 'less severe'. During the time the child was at the CE, we had a number of patients whose conditions were more severe and thus had to be attended to first. We wish to assure Mr Tirtoredjo that our procedures, including admission, are centred on the children's medical conditions. Children who are seriously ill are immediately sent to the wards first, and the documentation completed only after admission. For patients who are relatively stable, our admissions staff will give them information regarding admission procedures. This process usually takes 20 to 30 minutes. As Mr Tirtoredjo's son was in a stable condition, our staff proceeded with admission procedures and this took about 35 minutes, including the physical transfer of the child to the ward. As paediatric health-care professionals, we understand that caring for a sick child can be distressing for parents and we are sincerely sorry if we have caused Mr Tirtoredjo any anguish. We thank him for his feedback and appreciate the opportunity to clarify the services provided by our hospital. Should he require more information, he can call our Quality Service Manager on 6293-3297. Steven Sobak Chief Operating Officer KK Women's and Children's Hospital March 23, 2006 (Gerald: One of the rare occasions when someone other than the organisation concerned speaks up in its defense. That's mainly why I included this exchange, which is otherwise a fairly run-of-the-mill "My child was sick and waited forever and almost died" complaint, to which the hospital replies "We were unsually busy, and he was not as ill as you say, but we symphatise and apologise anyway." ) I REFER to Mr Agus Tirtoredjo's letter, 'Sick child waited 1 1/2 hours to see A&E doc' (ST, March 23), and would like to defend the Singapore health-care system. I agree that attending to a sick child is of utmost priority, and I can understand a parent's feelings when he sees his child in distress. However, I am sure that the nurses in Singapore are competent enough to ensure that the child's life is not endangered in any way. Furthermore, bearing in mind the limited resources and manpower at night, one should not fault the hospital staff entirely. Being an undergraduate in a British university, I have come to appreciate greatly the health care that I am able to receive back home. Singaporeans have become too pampered to appreciate the quality medical services provided. After all, Singapore is not ranked the world's most efficient health-care system for nothing. Let me provide an insight into the British health-care scene. For those who are unaware, Britain provides free medical treatment, even to foreign students. Those who feel envious of the amenities that the British government provides should know that it is very frustrating just to get a simple ailment treated. Take, for example, a common case of high fever. Those seeking treatment would normally be required to make an appointment the day before and, sometimes, two days ahead. There is, of course, an alternative, such as the National Health Service walk-in centres, which require no appointment but patients suffering from fever might have to wait up to two hours just for a consultation with a nurse. Take another example, of a person suffering from an eating disorder. It could take up to two years before he receives any medical treatment! Having witnessed the inefficiency of the British system, I urge Singaporeans to count their blessings instead of complaining about our health services. If Mr Tirtoredjo's son had been in Britain, I believe he would have waited much longer than 1 1/2 hours. Felicia Chung Pei Wen (Miss) March 24, 2006 |
| Return to top |
|
I HAVE done a series of medical tests at Singapore General Hospital over the past few months for a chronic pain condition. Having spent several thousands of dollars, I was shocked to be told I had to pay an additional $77 for a copy of the test results. Why should I have to pay for a copy of my own test results when I have already paid for the tests? Isn't this double-payment? Or does a dozen sheets of paper cost $77 these days? Heng Su Lin (Ms) The Straits Times July 24, 2006 Click here to view the reply I REFER to Ms Heng Su Lin's letter, '$77 for copy of test results' (ST, July 24). We would like to clarify that patients who request copies of their test results are charged a processing fee of $5.25. However, the cost of a specially prepared medical report is $78.75. This fee is for the time needed by the patient's specialist to extract relevant information from the medical records for the report. Charging for test results and medical reports is a standard practice in restructured hospitals. The hospital does not charge for a medical report given to doctors from other hospitals, meant for follow-up treatment of the patient. Medical reports given to government agencies, such as the Legal Aid Bureau, and appointed law firms as part of investigations will also not be charged. We do not have any record of Ms Heng's request. She may contact our Service Quality Department on 6326-5350 so that we may assist her. Wong Loong Kin Chief Financial Officer Singapore General Hospital July 28, 2006 |
| Return to top |
|
IT APPEARS The Straits Times Forum page devotes far too much attention to complaints of one sort or another about the public health-care system in Singapore. I think this practice should not be encouraged as the correct forum for such complaints (or feedback) rightly belongs to the customer or patient relations department of the clinic or hospital concerned. The complaints pertain to specific situations and circumstances and do not involve larger issues of the health-care system, which most of us know is of a higher standard. The polyclinics and hospitals see thousands of cases and if administrative or medical problems are encountered by specific patients and their families, the newspaper should not give them a 'public' airing. By constantly allowing specific complaints to be published, The Straits Times does great disservice to dedicated medical professionals who are already overstretched in what they do. In fact, by publishing the complaints, ST has unwittingly impugned the reputation of our public health-care system, since most complaints appear be groundless upon investigation. I sincerely hope that in 2007, The Straits Times will cease to publish these complaints in the Forum page. The unhappy writers of those letters should give their feedback or complaint to the clinic or hospital concerned and they will certainly get a satisfactory reply. If not, they can always take their complaint further with the Singapore Medical Council and if need be, resort to legal action. Lim Chin Siew Straits Time Forum Jan 02, 2007 |
| Return to top |
|
Process of a complaint
|
|
|
|
Spore, S'pore, hsptl, KK, KKWCH, SGH, TTSH, Tan Tock Seng, Tan Tok, TanTock, TanTockSeng, CGH, Changi General, NCH, New Changi, AH, Alexandra, Alexander, Alexandre, NUH, NUS ST Forum, Strait Time, New Paper, Today, fora, Slander, libel, lible |
Legal Stuff |
|
|
|