Read the full judgment text of CACV 000206/2000 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 1 November 2001 before Mayo VP, Le Pichon JA, Yeung J.
Medical practitioners – professional misconduct – Medical Registration Ordinance (Cap 161) s.21(1)(b) – meaning of 'misconduct in a professional respect' – whether test requires conduct to be 'disgraceful, unethical or dishonourable' – appellant performed total hysterectomy and right salpingo-oophorectomy on pregnant patient within hours of first consultation – patient alleged inadequate advice and consent – sufficiency of charge – whether failure to give appropriate advice can render operation inappropriate and unnecessary – appeal against warning letter issued by Medical Council – held: correct test is whether doctor's conduct has fallen short of standard expected amongst doctors (Koo Kwok Ho v Medical Council) – no room for additional 'litmus test' of disgraceful, unethical or dishonourable conduct – change of wording in 1971 from 'infamous conduct' to 'misconduct' effected change in substance – 'examination' in charge encompasses all matters incidental to examination including pre-operative advice – charge sufficient to support finding of misconduct – absence of informed consent rendered operation inappropriate – medical evidence supported finding of unnecessary procedures – appeal dismissed – order nisi for costs in favour of the Medical Council.
Legal issues: Meaning of 'misconduct in a professional respect' under s.21(1)(b) Cap 161 · Sufficiency of the charge and particulars · Whether failure to give appropriate advice can render an operation inappropriate and unnecessary
Outcome: Appeal dismissed. The Medical Council's finding of professional misconduct and the warning letter issued to the appellant were upheld.