Outrage at 'old boys' network' that protects medics

Patient bodies last night expressed outrage that a drug addict doctor found guilty of forging prescriptions is allowed to continue to practise with name suppression.

An "old boys' network interested only in protecting the reputations of doctors - not the rights of patients" is how Anna de Jonge described the medical profession.

An operating theatre charge nurse for 23 years, de Jonge is a patients' rights advocate based in Hamilton.

She said name suppression protects the guilty, not the aggrieved.

"The patients don't know who they can trust. I don't like to go to doctors who have made mistakes," de Jonge said. "The medical fraternity is supposed to safeguard the public."

Health and Disability Commissioner Ron Paterson, charged with checking complaints against doctors, said being guilty of a breach did not necessarily mean a doctor was incompetent.

He believed they deserved to be able to protect their reputation without negative media publicity.

The HDC investigated 172 complaints last year and found 71 breaches of the code. For most breaches the commissioner publishes a report but does not identify the practitioner, employer or the patient.

Significant breaches -14 last year - are referred to the Director of Proceedings, who can then take action before a disciplinary tribunal or the Human Rights Review Tribunal. At those hearings, the accused practitioner is usually identified, although the courts often grant name suppression.

Theo Baker, director of proceedings for the HDC, said she always opposed name suppression, even in the interim.

"But we're often unsuccessful in the interim. If permanent name suppression is granted, we're always going to oppose, and appeal right to the bitter end if need be."

National Party health spokesman Tony Ryall said name suppression could be appropriate if the doctor was guilty of a minor offence.

The most serious breaches are heard by the Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal, a panel of five medical and legal experts.

Gay Fraser, executive officer for the tribunal, said it was "most unusual" for guilty practitioners to receive permanent name suppression, which was granted only in "exceptional circumstances" - such as an ill family member whose condition would be aggravated by publicity, or if the complainant could be identified as a result.

Dr Ross Bosswell, chairman of the New Zealand Medical Association, said name suppression was important to protect the reputation of a doctor who was innocent until proven guilty.

The public, usually represented by the news media, should appeal if they think the judge has erred in favour of suppression. "It's a pity that the news media have to carry cost of that appeal. You get the best justice that money can buy," Dr Boswell said.