Hong Kong’s Medical Council has dramatically reversed its controversial decision to permanently terminate a long-stalled disciplinary hearing concerning a cross-border infant later diagnosed with cerebral palsy. The abrupt shift, announced Friday following a three-hour review, came under intense public scrutiny and after direct intervention from the government. The high-stakes case, which spans over a decade, centers on allegations of professional negligence and has become a major test of public confidence in the local medical oversight system.
Restoring Public Trust in Professional Oversight
On Friday afternoon, the Council convened a special session to revisit its earlier ruling to halt the inquiry permanently. After an hour of private deliberation, a panel led by Professor Grace Tang announced the rescission of the termination order. Professor Tang maintained that the initial decision was made purely on legal grounds after weighing previous submissions and did not, at the time, disregard public interest. However, she acknowledged that the panel’s original considerations were “not sufficiently comprehensive.”
The reversal signals the Council’s response to overwhelming community concern and a formal letter from the government expressing strong reservations and demanding accountability regarding complaint investigation mechanisms. Following internal review, the Council concluded it necessary to seek additional legal research and precedent, ultimately determining that both parties required a further hearing to address remaining legal and factual arguments.
Family Welcomes “Glimmer of Hope”
For the patient’s parents, identified as Mr. and Mrs. Lai, the reversal was a momentary victory. Travelling from Shenzhen for the hearing, the couple expressed gratitude for public support and welcomed the decision, stating they finally “saw a glimmer of hope.” They have urgently requested that the Council schedule a full disciplinary hearing without further delay.
A representative from the Society for Community Organisation (SoCO), which supports the Lais, reinforced that the day’s outcome only concerned the procedural reversal. True justice, he stressed, could only be determined through a full disciplinary hearing. He further noted the relevance of a concurrent Ombudsman investigation into the Department of Health’s complaint processing mechanisms, suggesting that broader procedural scrutiny could help expedite slow-moving cases.
Defence Argues Against Procedural Abuse
The reversal was strongly contested by the defense counsel representing the doctor at the center of the case, Dr. Sit Sou-chi, who did not attend the hearing. The defense maintained that resuming the inquiry after 15 years constitutes a severe and prejudicial delay, amounting to an abuse of process that undermines fairness and due process.
Defense counsel submitted that none of the delays were attributable to Dr. Sit, arguing that the prolonged uncertainty had inflicted significant personal strain, including mental health issues requiring psychiatric treatment, and lost career opportunities. They criticized the Council’s Secretariat as “inhumane and irresponsible” for citing administrative failings and workloads as justification for the excessive delay.
Conversely, senior counsel Mike Lui, representing the Medical Council Secretariat, argued that Dr. Sit’s claims of undue hardship were not sufficiently substantiated. Mr. Lui contested the assertion that the case should be terminated based solely on delay, pointing out that resuming the proceedings would allow the doctor a formal opportunity to clear his name if innocent, while simultaneously fulfilling the wider public interest to uphold professional accountability.
Next Steps for the Case
The Council’s decision to proceed underscores a renewed institutional commitment to maintaining public confidence and transparency, particularly in cases alleging serious harm where procedural delays are significant. The legal teams must now prepare for a reconstituted hearing. Officials are expected to press the Medical Council to establish an expedited timetable to finally bring the protracted inquiry to a conclusive resolution. This case remains a critical benchmark for how Hong Kong’s professional bodies balance due process with the imperative of public accountability.