Why Singapore pursued Shorvon case

by ZAKIR HUSSAIN
The Straits Times, February 13, 2007



SINGAPORE'S pursuit of epilepsy expert Simon Shorvon for professional misconduct shows its commitment to high ethical standards in research, Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan told Parliament yesterday.

He was responding to Dr Fatimah Lateef (Marine Parade GRC), who had asked why the case was pursued all the way to the British courts and whether the case would have any effect on Singapore's standing as a research centre.

Singapore's reputation is intact, Mr Khaw said.

'Our ongoing success in attracting research talent speaks volumes.

'If anything, this case has clearly reaffirmed our unwavering commitment to upholding international standards of bio-ethical practice, even as we promote biomedical research.

'Singapore will sacrifice neither patients nor ethical principles in the name of research,' he said, after outlining why the Singapore Medical Council (SMC) took up Professor Shorvon's case.

Prof Shorvon was head of the National Neuroscience Institute but got the sack in 2003 after three separate inquiries found he had accessed patients' medical records without their consent, and changed or omitted their medication without their consent.

He was then in charge of a major research project involving several patients with Parkinson's disease.

As he was a British-registered doctor, the SMC brought his case before Britain's General Medical Council (GMC) in 2004 after he was convicted of professional misconduct here.

The GMC council decided to hold a public inquiry, but cancelled it a year later, a decision Mr Khaw said undermined the SMC.

'It also risked harming Singapore's reputation as a centre which upheld international standards of ethical practice,' he added.

The SMC challenged the decision in the British courts, which ruled in favour of the GMC last December.

'I too am disappointed that the substance of the SMC's grievance was not fully addressed by the British courts,' said Mr Khaw.

'There are established international rules governing the conduct of research on human subjects. Prof Shorvon and his assistant deliberately subverted these rules.

'I am baffled why the British professional community should choose to condone such a practice,' he added.