BACK

POLICY PAPER

MORE PAPERS

11^th August 2002

Letter to editor
SCMP

Dear Sir:

I am appalled to read your reports on the liver transplant fiasco. My daughter and I have signed on the donor list for quite some time but are now seriously considering taking our names off it.

How can decision makers, all doctors in this case, forsake their Hippocratic oath, which states that patients’ interest must come first, for blinkered administrative expediency? Surely the Hospital Authority, with its annual budget of over 30 billion dollars, does not suffer from a lack of fund. The real cause of the problem lies with the failure to provide services fairly and sensibly. What appeared to be a shortage of subsidy is in truth a case of deficiency in good sense and sympathy. On one hand the Hospital Authority is lavishing money on day surgery for non-critical problems like hemorrhoids and cysts, while on the other precious human liver that could have saved a life is being thrown out as rubbish due to funding difficulties. How would the family of the deceased donor feel?

Scrapping the quota on liver transplant is a step in the right direction but there really should not be any limit on procedures of this kind. Among developed countries, Hong Kong ranks lowest in organ transplant rates; so much for our "Asia’s world city". While removal of cysts and hemorrhoids can easily be dealt with by the private sector, cutting edge life-saving procedures like organ transplant can only be done in public facilities due to capital and logistic requirements.

Setting priorities with finite resources is what must be done. Money must be channeled to where it is needed most. Zero waiting time for urgent cases is a must whereas non-urgent ones will just have to wait or go private. Failing this, sorry tales like what just transpired will recur. When that happens, the Hospital Authority would have no one but itself to blame for the dismal public response in organ donation.

Dr. Patrick K Y Shiu, Jordan