Bangkok: Doctors are embroiled in a heated debate over claims that the Medical Council failed to send complete documents to the Special President. One of the Medical Council members has publicly addressed the issue, asserting that all necessary information was indeed provided.
According to Thai News Agency, Asst. Prof. Dr. Smith Srithan, a member of the Medical Council, clarified the situation in a detailed post. He explained that the Medical Council had sent a comprehensive 95-page document outlining the resolution process, from the initial petition to the evidence collected and the opinions of various subcommittees. This included more than 1,500 pages of related documents and evidence, such as medical records and testimonies.
Dr. Smith acknowledged that the committee appointed by the Special President requested additional details, specifically the names of the Screening Subcommittee members and their meeting report. However, he argued that this information was not pertinent to the resolution and reiterated that the opinions of the Screening Subcommittee had already been included in the 95-page document initially provided. He emphasized that the Medical Council's resolution is the final decision, and any objections or requests for further information should focus on the evidence used by the Council to reach its decision.
The Medical Council is set to revisit the resolution in an upcoming meeting. For the resolution to proceed as originally planned, it must receive the support of two-thirds of the committee, equating to 47 out of 70 members. Despite the potential for an appeal in the administrative court system, the Council's meeting is scheduled to ensure all 70 members are present to form a quorum.
Ms. Trichata Sritada, the political spokesperson for the Ministry of Public Health, disclosed that Mr. Somsak exercised his legal rights to veto the Medical Council's resolution, which involved warnings and the suspension of medical licenses for three doctors. He established a 10-member committee to scrutinize the situation, which found some procedural ambiguities within the Medical Council subcommittee. Consequently, Mr. Somsak's veto was based on these findings, urging the Medical Council to reassess the validity and reasonableness of the veto.