Medical Board of Queensland vs Raddatz - Case Study Example

Name Professor Course Date of submission Medical Board of Queensland vs. Raddatz Part 1 The facts of the case In the case, a medical practitioner had his medical registration licence suspended after the prescription of the Mannatech products to the patients suffering from variety of conditions. Based on the analysis of the case, it is evident the enthusiasm of the practitioners to use certain products are likely to cloud their clinical decisions regarding the evidence for what is considered in the best interest of the patient. It is also clear that the patients can be deceived easily to believe that they are receiving the best tests or efficacious treatment, which might not be the case1. Besides, the practitioners need to avoid making secret profits from the supply of medications and devices since their solve objective is to ensure that they offer better healthcare services2. In this case, the practitioner prescribed only one product line, which might have been unduly influenced by the marketing activities used by the manufacturers of the supplement medicines. Nonetheless, it is important to note that the major factor that contributed to the suspension of the practitioner was not using the products themselves, instead indiscriminating the prescribed products which were valued at over $250 on monthly basis for various conditions without any considerations to the clinical effectiveness associated with the drug and in specific substances. For instance, similar products were offered to the patients suffering from different health complications such as epilepsy, hemochromatosis, infertility, and cancer. In addition, the practitioner promoted the drug as a business opportunity to the daughter of the patient rather than focusing on assisting the patient. The professional ethical codes play an important role in identifying the conflict of interest, which in turn seem to distort the objective judgement of the doctor regarding the best interest of the patients. Health practitioners are trained to act in the best interest of their patients; however, in this case, the doctor was more occupied with personal gains from the sale of unsubscribed products. In addition, the legal fiduciary duties might be owed by the health practitioners to the patients in situations of potential conflict of interest. For many years, studies have been undertaken to prescribe and dispend the functions considered to be legally separated with an aim of preventing the conflict of interest that could arise3. With the introduction of integrative medicine, there has been increased growth in the in house selling of the therapeutic products which is the case witnessed in the medical board of Queensland and Raddatz. Legal Issues The medical merchandising involves a prima-facie conflict of interest that might result in notifiable conduct under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law provisions. Based on the Australian legal structures, healthcare practitioners have the responsibility of adhering to the strict conditions to avoid contravention of the accepted professional standards4. In addition, the law requires healthcare practitioners who believe that their colleagues have failed to comply with the required conditions should consider notifying the Medical Board of Australia5. Health Practitioner Registration Act requires medical doctors to act in the best interest of the patients at all time; however, the doctor contravened section 124(1)(a) of the Act which needs professionals to act in a satisfactory manner at all time while engaging in health matters. The fact that the practitioner contravened the established code of conduct, the court was compelled to invoke Section 41A of the Health Care Complaints Acts 1993 (NSW) which gives power to the New South Wales Health care Complaints Commission to ban a qualified practitioner from practicing medicine if he/she breaches the Code. The decision by the practitioner posed risk to the safety and health of the patient. In most cases, conflicts of interests often arise in the professional statements and codes of ethics and conduct6. In Australia, the Australasian Integrative Medical Association supports the practitioners in selling various complementary and alternative medicine products at reasonable prices; however, it emphasizes that the decisions be made based on the clinical grounds but not on profits. In addition, there is need to provide the patients with adequate information including the declaration of the financial interests in the sales. The Australian Medical Association’s Code of ethics and the National Health Act of 1953 forbid exploitation of the patients for any reason and refrain from any entering into contracts, which are likely to impair their decisions, professional integrity, main obligation to the patient, and clinical dependence. The legal position regarding the relationship between the healthcare providers and pharmaceutical industries have financial interests in dispensing the medicines and are greatly in the prima-facie position associated with conflicts of interest7. The National Law provides for the mandatory notifications through the registered healthcare providers of the notifiable conduct of the colleagues such as putting the public at risk of harm. This is so since the practitioner is practicing in a manner constituting a departure from the accepted professional standards as enshrined in Section 140(d) of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Act of 2009. Reasoning Employed by the Judges to Reach the Decision Based on the investigations undertaken, it was found that doctor Raddatz sold complementary, unconventional, and alternative products to the patients. Some of the products include insulin treatment among the diabetic treatment. As a result, the Tribunal had to cancel the registration of the doctor in line with Section 41A of the Health Care Complaints Acts 1993 (NSW) the permits revoking of the license of the practitioners should they be found to have breached the codes of conduct. In addition, the investigations noted that the doctor engaged in unsatisfactory practices such as the unorthodox use of dietary testing and advice, which increase vulnerability of the patients to various health complications. Legal frameworks within the medical profession advocates for the separation of therapeutic products prescriptions, dispensing, and the sales accord with the required ethical principles with an aim of reducing the harmful effects of the excessive power delegated on a single person. The doctor failed to separate these functions resulting in financial gain consideration which distorted his objective judgements regarding what is considered the of the best interest to the patients. Based on such findings, the judges noted that the doctor breached the code of practice, which made the patients vulnerable to health and safety issues. Part 2 I do not oppose the outright sale of the products offered to the patients considering that proper and adequate infrastructure is yet to be realized to enable the practitioners offer quality complementary and alternative medicine treatments. In addition, most practitioners are keen on retaining the clinic sales to prevent challenges associated with substitution of the brand. However, I also believe that these sales need to be enacted in accordance with the principles outlined in the legal frameworks and codes of conduct. In my view, I consider direct medical merchandizing to comprise of a prima-facie conflict of interest, which is unacceptable within the medical profession and to some extent, it might amount to notifiable conducts as enshrined within the National Law8. Based on the analysis, there have existence of numerous professional ethical guidelines that need healthcare practitioners to act in manner that is considered of the best interest of the patients through avoiding exploitation of the patients. In addition, the practitioners need disclose all the information associated with the risks and benefits of the treatment involving complementary and alternative medicine, which needs to be free of any financial influence. At all point, healthcare practitioners need to avoid conflict of interest especially those associated with financial interests while dispensing various pharmaceutical products to prevent harming the patients economically through recommendations of the inefficacious treatments9. To prevent legal challenges, the practitioners need to avoid making unjustifiable profits and report any unprofessional conduct among the colleagues10. Based on the analysis of the case, the judges considered all these factors, thus the decision made was appropriate. The case was correctly decided. For provision of adequate and informed consent, prevention of harm while maximizing the benefits of the patient, and prevention of notifiable conduct as in the National Law, the practitioners involved in selling various therapeutic products that relate to the prescribed products need to comply with certain legal requirements. However, the broader view of the case should have considered if the practitioner provided full information to the patient regarding the evidence of the prescribed product, risks and benefits of the product, and any mark-up on the cost associated with the product. I believe that doctors selling products from their affiliated partners but fail to comply with such conditions have seriously breached their ethical and professional responsibilities11. The Medical Board of Australia requires that healthcare practitioners with reasonable feeling that their colleagues have failed to comply with the required standards should consider reporting the case. In this case, none of the practitioners heed to such requirements meaning that the judge took the right step. Works Cited Brink, Emily. "The practice and regulatory requirements of naturopathy and western herbal medicine in Australia." Risk Management and Healthcare Policy, vol. 4, no. 2, 2009, pp. 21-32. Catton, M. "Medical schools tackle conflict of interest." Canadian Medical Association Journal, vol. 173, no. 10, 2005, pp. 1143-1143. The Clinical Ethics Resource. "Complementary Medicine - General Information - The Clinical Ethics Project." The Clinical Ethics Project - Bioethics, Health Law - Legislation, Case Law, Guidelines and Research NSW Australia, The Clinical Ethics Project, 2015, clinicalethics.info/complementary-medicine/general-information. Accessed 9 May 2017. Lawton, V. "Is the conflict of interest unacceptable when drug companies conduct trials on their own drugs? No." BMJ, vol. 339, no. nov27 1, 2009, pp. 4953-4953. MLM Watch. "Australian Physician Disciplined for Misrepresenting Mannatech Products." MLM Watch, MLM Watch, 2014, www.mlmwatch.org/04C/Mannatech/raddatz.html. Accessed 9 May 2017. Parker, Malcolm H., et al. "Medical merchants: conflict of interest, office product sales and notifiable conduct." MJA, vol. 19, no. 1, 2011, p. 34–37. https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2011/194/1/medical-merchants-conflict-interest-office-product-sales-and-notifiable-conduct Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA). "An Overview of the Regulation of Complementary Medicines in Australia." Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), 2013, www.tga.gov.au/overview-regulation-complementary-medicines-australia. Accessed 9 May 2017. Wardle, Jon. "The National Registration and Accreditation Scheme: what would inclusion mean for naturopathy and Western herbal medicine? Part II: Practice implications." Australian Journal of Medical Herbalism, vol. 23, no. 1, 2013, pp. 18-26. Read More