Wife Challenges Doctor's Punishment Over Drugs Death

The wife of a man who died of organ failure after allegedly being given inappropriate medication has launched a legal challenge in the High Court over the Medical Council's decision to only give the doctor involved an 18-month probation order.

Relatives of the man who died say the punishment was too lenient, complaining that the doctor has never even apologised to them.

The patient, who had kidney problems, died in 2016 at the age of 51. He had received medication from the doctor in question on five occasions that year.

Tim Pang from the Society for Community Organisation, who is helping the family with their judicial review application, said the doctor did not write down details of the medication, such as the amount of drugs prescribed, on a referral letter to Pamela Youde Nethersole Eastern Hospital.

The council noted that the patient appeared to have been poisoned by the drugs he was given, and Pang alleged that the two types of pills prescribed were not suitable for someone with kidney problems.

He said the council had paid too much attention to the doctor's regret over what had happened and didn't investigate why the referral letter didn't have more information about the prescription.

"It's not only the sentencing that is too lenient, it reflects the lack of consistent sentencing policy to justify decisions," Pang said.

"In the UK they have very clear guidelines for panel members, like what to consider as mitigation factors, what are the aggravating factors."

The man's wife, surnamed Lu, said they hadn't even received an apology from the doctor who they had known for years.

"The doctor has not apologised since the incident happened... it has been five years... he has met us and we have been knowing each other for more than 10 years," she said.

"On the 30th April, we were at the council's hearing and we met, we saw each other, but we haven't spoken a single word... we are sad about this" she added.

The council's report into the death stated that the doctor had taken steps to improve his medical practice since the incident, noting he had a clear disciplinary record and had cooperated throughout the hearing.