10
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 13, 1989
SELF-REGULATION AMONG MEDICAL BODIES EMPHASISED
THE SUPPLEMENTARY MEDICAL PROFESSIONS COUNCIL [SMPC) AND THE VARIOUS SUPPLEMENTARY MEDICAL PROFESSION BOARDS SHOULD BE GIVEN A FREE HAND TO DETERMINE HOW BEST TO ACHIEVE FULL AUTONOMY WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE LAW TO REGULATE SUPPLEMENTARY MEDICAL PROFESSIONS. THE HON EDWARD HO SAID IN THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL TODAY (WEDNESDAY).
SPEAKING IN SUPPORT OF THE SUPPLEMENTARY MEDICAL PROFESSIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL 1989, MR HO SAID THE BILL HAD PROBABLY SET A RECORD IN THAT IT STRADDLED THREE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL SESSIONS.
"THERE HAVE BEEN ARGUMENTS OVER THE PROVISIONS IN THE BILL.
BUT I AM CONVINCED THAT THESE ARE NOTHING BUT HEALTHY ARGUMENTS, ALL SEEKING TO PROTECT THE INTEREST
門 OF THE PUBLIC. SAID MR HO. THE
CONVENER OF A LECCO AD HOC GROUP WHICH SCRUTINISED THE BILL.
HE NOTED THAT ONE OF THE MAJOR DISPUTES AROSE FROM A CLAUSE WHICH SOUGHT то REQUIRE THAT WHERE THE BOARD OF A RELEVANT SUPPLEMENTARY MEDICAL PROFESSION BOARD PREPARED A CODE OF PRACTICE AND REVISED IT SUBSEQUENTLY, THE BOARD SHOULD INFORM THE SMPC IN WRITING AND SERVE ON THE SMPC A COPY OF THE CODE OR THE REVISIONS.
BROADLY SPEAKING, THE VIEWS OF THE AD HOC GROUP ON THIS CLAUSE HAD BEEN DIVIDED INTO TWO MAIN STREAMS.
ON ONE HAND. SOME MEMBERS CONSIDERED THAT THE CODE OF PRACTICE FOR THE SUPPLEMENTARY MEDICAL PROFESSIONS WERE OF SUCH IMPORTANCE THAT IT WOULD BE IN THE INTEREST OF THE PUBLIC TO REQUIRE BY LAW THAT THEIR PREPARATION AND ANY SUBSEQUENT REVISION SHOULD BE SCRUTINISED AND APPROVED BY THE SMPC.
THESE MEMBERS ARGUED THAT THE CLAUSE FAILED TO CLEARLY DEFINE THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE SMPC AND THE BOARDS AS REGARDS THE CODES OF PRACTICE FOR THE PROFESSIONS. AND THE MERE SERVICE OF COPIES OF THE CODES OF PRACTICE OR OF THEIR REVISIONS ON THE SMPC WOULD NOT ASSIST THE COUNCIL IN DISCHARGING ITS STATUTORY SUPERVISORY FUNCTIONS OVER THE BOARDS.
THESE MEMBERS WERE PARTICULARLY CONCERNED THAT THE RELEVANT PROFESSIONALS SHOULD NOT TREAT PATIENTS WITHOUT REFERRALS BY MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS, AND SUGGESTED THAT THE NEED FOR SUCH REFERRALS SHOULD NOT ONLY BE STIPULATED IN THE RESPECTIVE CODES OF PRACTICE OF THE PROFESSIONS, BUT ALSO IN THE STATUTORY REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE PROFESSIONS.
ON THE OTHER HAND. OTHER MEMBERS FELT THAT SINCE THE ENACTMENT OF THE ORDINANCE IN 1980. THE WORKING RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE SMPC AND THE BOARDS HAD BEEN THAT OF CONSULTATION AND CO-OPERATION. THIS RELATIONSHIP HAD SERVED THEM WELL AND SHOULD BE MAINTAINED BOTH PARTIES HAD EXPRESSED SATISFACTION WITH IT.
AS
/MR HO