Doctor accused of causing patient’s death by cutting wrong arteries restricted from surgery for 18 months

They argued that Dr Fong likely had a fundamental misunderstanding and/or misapprehension of the human anatomy and the mistaken ligation may not have been a one-off, inadvertent error.

“Even at the hearing of the coroner’s inquiry some three years after (her) death, Dr Fong had still wrongly identified the location of the aorta and initially maintained that his understanding was correct before eventually conceding his mistake,” said SMC’s lawyers.

They added that Dr Fong had deviated from the correct sequence of ligations and transections and the coroner had described the order in which he ligated and transected the vessels to be “unfathomable”.

SMC argued that there was a real risk that another patient could suffer “the same fatal outcome” should Dr Fong be allowed to continue practising unrestricted.

It added that the restrictions would be in the public interest, as there is a risk of public confidence in the standard of the medical profession being undermined if the public knows that Dr Fong was permitted to continue practising with no restrictions given the gravity of the error and the fact that criminal proceedings were widely reported.

DR FONG’S CASE

Dr Fong said he had voluntarily stopped performing major abdominal surgery on patients since June 2022 and had voluntarily written to the hospital asking to be relieved from performing all advanced laparoscopic or keyhole and robotic surgeries.

After he was charged, he was placed on an indefinite leave of absence by the hospital.

Dr Fong said he has engaged only in clinical practice as a locum at private general practice clinics on an ad-hoc basis since he was charged in March.

He said he is the sole breadwinner supporting a homemaker wife and four children, and that his income has had a significant drop since 2022 as a result of his voluntary restriction.

He also said he was prepared to voluntarily undertake not to perform any major abdominal surgery until the disciplinary tribunal proceedings against him are completed.

He objected to the SMC’s reliance on evidence admitted during the coroner’s inquiry and said it would be incredibly prejudicial and unfair for the SMC to rely on a partial and incomplete account of a State expert’s views, as it is in the nature of a coroner’s inquiry that a state expert’s evidence would not be challenged by any expert opinion.

Dr Fong’s lawyers said that during his 20 years in Raffles Hospital, Dr Fong had performed or assisted in at least 200 laparoscopic surgeries.

He had performed more than 60 open and laparoscopic nephrectomies – procedures to remove all or part of a kidney – in the last 20 years without a single case of accidental cutting of the wrong artery or post-operative death.

The committee found that it was necessary for restrictions to be imposed.

For 18 months, Dr Fong must not offer or perform any surgery, whether as a primary, secondary or assistant surgeon.

This is save for minor office procedures which are appropriately performed in a primary care setting.

He must also inform the SMC of all places at which he practises, or intends to practise at.

He must also inform any organisation or person employing him for medical work about these conditions he is under.

Dr Fong’s criminal case is pending.

If convicted of causing death by a negligent act, he could be jailed for up to two years, fined, or both.