In January, we had the Chinese
New Year. I would like to wish everyone
a prosperous year of Ox. Apart from lion
dance, another ritual was the worshiping of Che Kung (車公) on the
second day of the New Year. On January 27, Mr. LAU Wong Fat, Chairman of Heung Yee Kuk, drew a fortune stick for
Hong Kong at the Che Kung Temple in Shatin. It read:
君不須防人不肖 眼前鬼卒皆為妖
秦王徒把長城築 禍去禍來因自招
The unlucky fortune stick No. 27 was about the story
of Qin Shihuang (秦始皇). It said that there was no need
to be aware of misbehaved people, because those serving you could all be
considered evil. Emperor Qin failed to
protect his Empire by building the Great Wall, because it was himself who
caused the Empire’s downfall.
Che Kung was a great generalissimo of the Song Dynasty (宋朝). He was worshipped in Hong Kong mainly because
of his act as a doctor. He was famous
for removing epidemics in Sai Kung and for curing people. It would be interesting to look at the fortune
stick from the viewpoint of a medical practitioner.
The first two sentences reminded
me of the handling of patients with infectious diseases and the collection of
specimens. In the 1980s, blood samples
from patients known to have HIV or hepatitis B were tagged with red labels to
alert handlers of the infectious nature. Then starting from the 1990s, this practice
was stopped. The reasons behind were
mainly that all specimens should be handled with care for the potentially
infectious nature, and that privacy of patients should be respected. I think this attitude should also be adopted
by leaders. Advices and proposals should
be handled with care and assessed by objective means no matter by whom the
advices are given. While doctors and
laboratory technicians are protected by gloves and gowns, leaders should be
protected by the general principles of “doing no harm”, “doing good” and “being
evidence-based”.
In February (starting Feb 9,
2009), police officers in uniform can require a person
who is driving or attempting to drive a vehicle on a road to conduct a breath
test without the need for reasonable suspicion. The Road Traffic Legislation
(Amendment) Ordinance 2008 (No. 23 of 2008) had been passed to amend the Road Traffic
Ordinance, the Road Traffic (Driving Licences) Regulations and other subsidiary
legislation under that Ordinance and the Road Traffic (Driving-offence Points)
Ordinance so as to -
- (a) increase the term of imprisonment of the offence of causing death by dangerous driving under section 36 of the Road Traffic Ordinance from maximum of 5 years to 10 years;
- (b) increase the penalties on offences under sections 39, 39A, 39B and 39C of the Road Traffic Ordinance (disqualification from driving for not less than 3 months on first conviction and not less than 2 year on second and subsequent convictions), and provide police officers with a general power to conduct screening breath tests;
- (c) introduce a pre-screening device for the purposes of the new section 39B(1)(a) of the Road Traffic Ordinance;
- (d) provide that certain traffic offenders are required to attend driving improvement courses;
- (e) extend the probationary driving licence scheme to novice drivers of private cars and light goods vehicles;
- (f) provide for the review by a Transport Tribunal of certain decisions made by the Commissioner for Transport to refuse to issue, reissue or renew driving licences or driving instructor's licences or to cancel those licences; and
- (g) make related, consequential and other minor amendments.
(The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Gazette, Legal Supplement No. 1 to No. 27, Vol. 12, 4 July 2008, pp. A961-A1059)
An interesting document to
compare was the “Review of Drink Driving Legislation” by the Panel on
Transportation of the Provisional Legislative Council in January 1998.:
“The Administration maintains its view that random testing should not be
introduced at this stage due to the following reasons:
- the setting up of road blocks for random testing causes further congestion to our busy roads;
- substantial additional Police resources will be required (additional capital and recurrent cost are estimated to be $2.4 million and $20 million respectively); and
- the legal advice that although it is debatable whether the practice involves an interference with privacy within the meaning of the Bill of Rights and therefore should not be ruled out completely on human rights grounds, the introduction should only be seriously considered if there is clear evidence, which there is none, that the current drink driving laws are not proving effective.”
Doctors need to be alerted about
this recent change, as this may be related to professional misconduct and may endanger
our registration. Section 27 of the Code
of Professional Conduct 2009 concerns criminal conviction. S.27.1 reads: “A doctor convicted of any offence punishable by
imprisonment is liable to disciplinary proceedings
of the Medical Council, regardless of whether he is sentenced to imprisonment. A conviction in itself will invoke the
Council’s disciplinary procedure
even if the offence does not involve professional misconduct. However, the Council may decide not to hold an
inquiry where the conviction has no
bearing on the doctor’s practice as a registered medical practitioner.” And s.27.2 reads: “A particularly serious
view will likely be taken in respect of offences involving dishonesty (e.g. obtaining money or goods by
deception, forgery, fraud, theft), indecent
behaviour or violence. Offences which
may affect a doctor’s fitness to practise (e.g. alcohol
or drug related offences) will also be of particular concern to the Council.” Section 11 of the Code concerns
abuse of alcohol and drugs. S.11.1 reads: “Convictions for offences
arising from drunkenness or abuse of alcohol or drugs (such as driving under the influence of alcohol or
drugs) are likely to be regarded as professional
misconduct.”
(Source: HKMA News February 2009)
