Is treatment wrong, if patients benefited?

News from: by Leong Wee Keat,05:55 AM Jan 14, 2010,TODAYonline

Dr Gobinathan, a neurologist, lodged an appeal to the Court of Three Judges on Wednesday this week. Last August he was convicted of professional misconduct by Singapore Medical Council (SMC) Disciplinary Committee, after he suggested Ultrasound Sonolysis for the treatment of Parkinson’s disease to an elderly woman in 2006 and availed her. The committee had adjudged that the safety of Ultrasound therapy was unsubstantiated since there was no experiment practice or physic proof, so it was not appropriate to use Ultrasound in clinical neurology practice.

Dr Gobinathan’s lawyer argued 700 patients had been successfully treated by the neurologist using Ultrasound with no complications, while SMC’s lawyer, Dr Myint Soe, pointed out that Dr Devathasan’s study had involved only 15 patients. In my opinion, no matter how many patients are treated and benefited, as long as the new medical technology does not undergo formal clinical trials, it is not recommendable or correct for a doctor to apply it on patients, regardless of his purpose. Even mature medical technologies should vary and change sometimes depending on the different symptoms and body conditions of patients, needless to talk about a treatment that “is not sufficiently known or sufficiently covered in medical publications”.

However, Dr Devathasan’s lawyer also added that the neurologist had also shared his discoveries at an international conference. Since the Ultrasound treatment has been found effective for Parkinson’s disease at least four years ago, why has it not been tested till today? I suggest an efficient and clear medical technology clinical practice admittance regime should be established in order to examine new treatments’ safety as well as efficacy. Therefore these technologies can be quick improved, perfected and applied on patients.

By Sally