Doctor gets jail for causing patient’s death during aesthetic treatment

The Society of Aesthetic Medicine (Singapore) previously stated that chelation therapy was not a field within aesthetic medicine, but was advocated by “some wellness promoting clinics” for use on healthy patients, with the belief that heavy metals consumed in daily diets contribute to poor health and premature ageing.

Dr Chan told MOH that he told Ms Lau she was not suitable to undergo chelation therapy, but she “insisted” as she was happy with the outcome previously.

After Dr Chan administered the treatment with the EDTA injection, Ms Lau stopped talking and he realised she was having a seizure. She later died.

At trial, Dr Chan’s defence lawyers Mr Adrian Wee and Ms Lynette Chang from Lighthouse Law argued that Ms Lau could have died from other reasons, such as the consumption of slimming products.

The defence also said that the use of EDTA was not expressly prohibited by MOH at the time of the offence.

An MOH circular had requested all hospitals to cease providing chelation therapy, but it was not issued to private clinics and Dr Chan was made aware of this circular only after Ms Lau died and MOH provided him a copy, said the lawyers.

They added that Dr Chan had attempted to resuscitate the victim, called for an ambulance and went to the hospital multiple times.

DR CHAN’S ACTS THE SOLE AND DIRECT CAUSE OF HER DEATH: JUDGE

Senior District Judge Ong Hian Sun found that Dr Chan’s acts were the sole and direct cause of Ms Lau’s death.

He said it was not mitigatory that Ms Lau had not suffered harm in her previous treatment, or that Dr Chan had carried out similar treatments to other patients without any harm.

Judge Ong said Dr Chan knew the risks, including death, associated with chelation treatment but did not take any precautions to ensure Ms Lau was a suitable candidate for it.

In a doctor-patient relationship, the patient’s life and well-being are at the mercy of the doctor treating her, said the judge.

He said Dr Chan had “clearly betrayed” the trust imposed in him by agreeing to administer EDTA on Ms Lau, and he was motivated by monetary gain.

Dr Chan did not take the necessary safeguards in the procedure and had not undergone any proper training for the administration of EDTA, the treatment of which was prohibited by MOH, said Judge Ong.

His conduct after Ms Lau collapsed was also relevant as he had “wilfully” chosen to conceal the EDTA treatment from her family members, paramedics and treating doctors, depriving them of critical life-saving information, said the judge.

Dr Chan had also deliberately omitted keeping proper clinical notes about the procedure, knowing he had administered a prohibited substance which caused her collapse.

For his own self-preservation, he also did not preserve any of the items used in the treatment at the time.

Dr Chan is still registered as a medical practitioner on the Ministry of Health’s registry.

He will be appealing against his conviction and sentence.

For causing death by a negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, he could have been jailed for up to two years, fined, or both.