The right prescription

Murray lived in Grenada and Trinidad before moving to the US where he practised medicine.

Upon his conviction for involuntary manslaughter in 2011, he was stripped of his Texas medical licence and his California and Nevada licences were also reportedly suspended.

Murray may well be entitled to practise medicine under certain conditions in the US. But the scope of the review of the Ministry of Health into this matter must consider more than just this point.

The ministry must review its own regulation of private medical facilities and their staff. It must further ensure that its own procedures relating to the issuing of certificates are adequate and comprehensive enough to make good determinations.

According to a Sunday Newsday report, a Medical Board administrative official last Friday revealed that Murray was registered to practise in 1999, but last renewed his licence in 2004. The official said Murray applied to have his licence renewed two years ago, but because he had not done so in more than ten years and had practised outside of the country, in the United States, he was asked to provide valid licences and letters of good standing from the medical boards where he last worked.

The official said Murray was unable to do so and was not granted a licence.

The medical centre at the heart of these developments has said it will issue a response to the report.

But the Ministry of Health saw enough to state unequivocally that it was looking into the matter.

In a media release, the ministry said that according to the Medical Board Act, Chapter 29:50, the Council of the Medical Board of Trinidad and Tobago is responsible for the registration/licensure of medical practitioners and the enforcement against people who are not duly registered/licensed but purport to practise medicine. Notwithstanding, in order to be vigilant when it comes to the safety of the public, the Ministry of Health is investigating the matter and is liaising with the council.

It does not look good if the State can be easily frustrated through informal or low-key arrangements at private institutions. It is important that members of the public are made aware of the licensing requirements of all doctors so that they may gauge the level of risk that might be involved in a consultation.

In this regard, it would be helpful if the list of doctors who hold valid licences was available to the public so they could search on their own, if so minded.

It must also be determined whether there is a robust enough set of rules governing the council’s accreditation function. Are applicants, for instance, mandated to disclose all legal matters relating to their practice, whether pending or determined? Is there a specific policy relating to cases involving death that applicants may have been be involved in? And does the council have adequate discretion to make determinations based on principle and policy and with fairness in mind? Ultimately, the State is challenged by the fact that no matter how well-designed its regulation, it can potentially be frustrated by private actors and institutions who may be able to block scrutiny.

There is no indication of wrongdoing on the part of the institution involved or Murray. But the lack of clarity over the many questions of oversight needs to be addressed for the sake of any case that might arise.

The right prescription is an inquiry by the ministry and we welcome its determination that this will be conducted.