Another doctor in trouble

[Victor68]

To me this is a very serious offence. Whose decision was it that only fine suffice? Maybe that authority should give an explanation to the public.

[inlinesix]

On 3/15/2026 at 5:43 PM, Volvobrick said:

Practice med/dental without registration means warning. Teaching driving without instructor license is jail.

I think something is not right here. 

Is it without registration or practising cert expired?

[RadX]

Sensing is foreign doctors who cannot practice here yet they are. They are drs but their certain not in the list of accredited medical institutes etc.

could be locums etc

thats why I always ask for a local trained.

 

if none, I walk out,  that’s IF i need to consult one

 

 

[Windwaver]

Think I remember this case.

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/doctor-jail-edta-treatment-cause-death-6120581

Doctor gets jail for causing patient's death during aesthetic treatment

Dr Chan Bingyi later concealed the fact that he had administered EDTA to the victim from her family, paramedics and doctors, in what the judge said was "deplorable conduct" done for his own self-preservation.

SINGAPORE: A doctor was sentenced to 18 months' jail on Thursday (May 14) for administering a substance to a woman as part of an aesthetic treatment that killed her.

The ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) was administered too quickly and at too high a concentration, causing 31-year-old Lau Li Ting to develop EDTA toxicity, which led to cardiac arrest and death.

Dr Chan Bingyi later concealed the fact that he had administered EDTA to the victim from her family, paramedics and doctors, in what the judge said was "deplorable conduct" done for his own self-preservation.

The 38-year-old Singaporean had contested one charge of committing a negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide in causing Ms Lau's death, but was convicted.

WHAT HAPPENED

Ms Lau, whom the prosecution described as a healthy woman, had visited Revival Medical & Aesthetics Centre in Bras Basah in March 2019 for aesthetic treatment.

In his account to the Ministry of Health (MOH) after the incident, Dr Chan said Ms Lau wanted to improve the fine lines on her forehead.

Dr Chan initially recommended a treatment different from EDTA and laser for her pores.

He claimed that Ms Lau asked if he provided chelation therapy which she had undergone with another doctor.

Chelation therapy involves the intravenous administration of EDTA to treat heavy metal toxicity.

EDTA is a powerful chemical agent which acts as a chelator or binding agent that suppresses chemical activity.

The Society of Aesthetic Medicine (Singapore) previously stated that chelation therapy was not a field within aesthetic medicine, but was advocated by "some wellness promoting clinics" for use on healthy patients, with the belief that heavy metals consumed in daily diets contribute to poor health and premature ageing.

Dr Chan told MOH that he told Ms Lau she was not suitable to undergo chelation therapy, but she "insisted" as she was happy with the outcome previously.

After Dr Chan administered the treatment with the EDTA injection, Ms Lau stopped talking and he realised she was having a seizure. She later died.

At trial, Dr Chan's defence lawyers Mr Adrian Wee and Ms Lynette Chang from Lighthouse Law argued that Ms Lau could have died from other reasons, such as the consumption of slimming products.

The defence also said that the use of EDTA was not expressly prohibited by MOH at the time of the offence.

An MOH circular had requested all hospitals to cease providing chelation therapy, but it was not issued to private clinics and Dr Chan was made aware of this circular only after Ms Lau died and MOH provided him a copy, said the lawyers.

They added that Dr Chan had attempted to resuscitate the victim, called for an ambulance and went to the hospital multiple times.

DR CHAN'S ACTS THE SOLE AND DIRECT CAUSE OF HER DEATH: JUDGE

Senior District Judge Ong Hian Sun found that Dr Chan's acts were the sole and direct cause of Ms Lau's death.

He said it was not mitigatory that Ms Lau had not suffered harm in her previous treatment, or that Dr Chan had carried out similar treatments to other patients without any harm.

Judge Ong said Dr Chan knew the risks, including death, associated with chelation treatment but did not take any precautions to ensure Ms Lau was a suitable candidate for it.

In a doctor-patient relationship, the patient's life and well-being are at the mercy of the doctor treating her, said the judge.

He said Dr Chan had "clearly betrayed" the trust imposed in him by agreeing to administer EDTA on Ms Lau, and he was motivated by monetary gain.

Dr Chan did not take the necessary safeguards in the procedure and had not undergone any proper training for the administration of EDTA, the treatment of which was prohibited by MOH, said Judge Ong.

His conduct after Ms Lau collapsed was also relevant as he had "wilfully" chosen to conceal the EDTA treatment from her family members, paramedics and treating doctors, depriving them of critical life-saving information, said the judge.

Dr Chan had also deliberately omitted keeping proper clinical notes about the procedure, knowing he had administered a prohibited substance which caused her collapse.

For his own self-preservation, he also did not preserve any of the items used in the treatment at the time.

Dr Chan is still registered as a medical practitioner on the Ministry of Health's registry.

He will be appealing against his conviction and sentence.

For causing death by a negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, he could have been jailed for up to two years, fined, or both.

[Tkseah]

On 5/14/2026 at 2:41 PM, Windwaver said:

Think I remember this case.

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/doctor-jail-edta-treatment-cause-death-6120581

Doctor gets jail for causing patient's death during aesthetic treatment

Dr Chan Bingyi later concealed the fact that he had administered EDTA to the victim from her family, paramedics and doctors, in what the judge said was "deplorable conduct" done for his own self-preservation.

SINGAPORE: A doctor was sentenced to 18 months' jail on Thursday (May 14) for administering a substance to a woman as part of an aesthetic treatment that killed her.

The ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) was administered too quickly and at too high a concentration, causing 31-year-old Lau Li Ting to develop EDTA toxicity, which led to cardiac arrest and death.

Dr Chan Bingyi later concealed the fact that he had administered EDTA to the victim from her family, paramedics and doctors, in what the judge said was "deplorable conduct" done for his own self-preservation.

The 38-year-old Singaporean had contested one charge of committing a negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide in causing Ms Lau's death, but was convicted.

WHAT HAPPENED

Ms Lau, whom the prosecution described as a healthy woman, had visited Revival Medical & Aesthetics Centre in Bras Basah in March 2019 for aesthetic treatment.

In his account to the Ministry of Health (MOH) after the incident, Dr Chan said Ms Lau wanted to improve the fine lines on her forehead.

Dr Chan initially recommended a treatment different from EDTA and laser for her pores.

He claimed that Ms Lau asked if he provided chelation therapy which she had undergone with another doctor.

Chelation therapy involves the intravenous administration of EDTA to treat heavy metal toxicity.

EDTA is a powerful chemical agent which acts as a chelator or binding agent that suppresses chemical activity.

The Society of Aesthetic Medicine (Singapore) previously stated that chelation therapy was not a field within aesthetic medicine, but was advocated by "some wellness promoting clinics" for use on healthy patients, with the belief that heavy metals consumed in daily diets contribute to poor health and premature ageing.

Dr Chan told MOH that he told Ms Lau she was not suitable to undergo chelation therapy, but she "insisted" as she was happy with the outcome previously.

After Dr Chan administered the treatment with the EDTA injection, Ms Lau stopped talking and he realised she was having a seizure. She later died.

At trial, Dr Chan's defence lawyers Mr Adrian Wee and Ms Lynette Chang from Lighthouse Law argued that Ms Lau could have died from other reasons, such as the consumption of slimming products.

The defence also said that the use of EDTA was not expressly prohibited by MOH at the time of the offence.

An MOH circular had requested all hospitals to cease providing chelation therapy, but it was not issued to private clinics and Dr Chan was made aware of this circular only after Ms Lau died and MOH provided him a copy, said the lawyers.

They added that Dr Chan had attempted to resuscitate the victim, called for an ambulance and went to the hospital multiple times.

DR CHAN'S ACTS THE SOLE AND DIRECT CAUSE OF HER DEATH: JUDGE

Senior District Judge Ong Hian Sun found that Dr Chan's acts were the sole and direct cause of Ms Lau's death.

He said it was not mitigatory that Ms Lau had not suffered harm in her previous treatment, or that Dr Chan had carried out similar treatments to other patients without any harm.

Judge Ong said Dr Chan knew the risks, including death, associated with chelation treatment but did not take any precautions to ensure Ms Lau was a suitable candidate for it.

In a doctor-patient relationship, the patient's life and well-being are at the mercy of the doctor treating her, said the judge.

He said Dr Chan had "clearly betrayed" the trust imposed in him by agreeing to administer EDTA on Ms Lau, and he was motivated by monetary gain.

Dr Chan did not take the necessary safeguards in the procedure and had not undergone any proper training for the administration of EDTA, the treatment of which was prohibited by MOH, said Judge Ong.

His conduct after Ms Lau collapsed was also relevant as he had "wilfully" chosen to conceal the EDTA treatment from her family members, paramedics and treating doctors, depriving them of critical life-saving information, said the judge.

Dr Chan had also deliberately omitted keeping proper clinical notes about the procedure, knowing he had administered a prohibited substance which caused her collapse.

For his own self-preservation, he also did not preserve any of the items used in the treatment at the time.

Dr Chan is still registered as a medical practitioner on the Ministry of Health's registry.

He will be appealing against his conviction and sentence.

For causing death by a negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, he could have been jailed for up to two years, fined, or both.

His medical license should be revoked 

[ER-3682]

@Tkseah come out from Prison,then SMC will take action..

[Windwaver]

40 years of experience! 

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/doctor-suspended-diabetic-patient-foot-infection-gangrene-amputation-6127856

Doctor suspended after diabetic patient with infected foot had leg amputated

Dr Lim Geok Leong, who has at least 40 years in medical practice, failed to refer the patient to a hospital or specialist during any of his five visits, despite the presence of conditions such as gangrene.

SINGAPORE: A doctor has been suspended for 13 months after failing to refer his patient – who had an infected right foot – to the hospital's emergency department or a specialist for treatment.

The patient visited Dr Lim Geok Leong, a general practitioner, five times and later had to undergo amputations on his right leg. He can no longer walk now.

He was having conditions such as gangrene in his toes, necrosis or dead tissue, and cellulitis – a potentially serious bacterial infection.

Dr Lim, whose age was not disclosed in the grounds of the decision published on May 15, was practising at Central Medical Group in Bukit Merah in April 2022 when the patient visited him. 

Looking at the foot's condition, Dr Lim assessed him to be suffering from severe and extensive cellulitis and severe diabetes.

He prescribed the patient, who was not named in the judgment, with oral antibiotics and advised him to return for a review four days later.

The patient returned four more times in April and May 2022.

Each time, Dr Lim assessed that the condition remained unchanged or had improved since the last visit, and continued treating him with oral antibiotics and other medication.

He did not refer the patient to the emergency department of a hospital or a specialist.

PATIENT GETS SECOND OPINION

On May 10, 2022, the day after his fifth visit to Dr Lim, the patient sought treatment at another clinic not named in the judgment.

He was documented as suffering from extensive right foot "wet gangrene" on his third toe, extending to his second toe and the top of his foot, which was a severe infection.

The patient was admitted to the hospital from the clinic and underwent a series of "high-risk ascending amputations" to his right leg, which resulted in an irreversible loss of his ability to walk.

The patient also suffered complications related to limb amputations, but no further details were given in the judgment.

As a registered medical practitioner, Dr Lim was required to adhere to ethical guidelines, which include providing appropriate care and referring the patient to other doctors or institutions that can provide the most appropriate services.

The standards required Dr Lim to refer a patient with an active diabetic foot condition to the emergency department of a hospital immediately when certain symptoms are present.

These include signs of inflammation, pus from the wound or cellulitis, or wet gangrene.

In failing to refer his patient to a hospital on the day of each visit, Dr Lim departed from these standards, the disciplinary tribunal found.

The Singapore Medical Council sought a 14-month suspension for Dr Lim, while his lawyers asked for no more than 10 months' suspension.

An expert report stated that the doctor's failure to refer the patient at any of his five visits "significantly contributed to the risk of the patient having to undergo ascending serial amputations on his right leg".

The expert noted that for patients with diabetes and peripheral artery disease, a delay of more than 14 days from the time of primary care assessment and a medical procedure called revascularisation has been identified as an independent predictor of major amputation.

The patient's five consultations with Dr Lim spanned 29 days, more than double this duration, the tribunal noted. It was the patient himself who decided to consult a different doctor.

The tribunal agreed with the Singapore Medical Council that Dr Lim did not intentionally cause harm to the patient and that his misconduct constitutes "serious negligence".

Dr Lim was represented by Mr Eric Tin and Mr Samuel Lim from law firm Donaldson & Burkinshaw, who pointed out Dr Lim's unblemished record over a medical career spanning more than 40 years.

They submitted testimonials in the form of Google review comments to say that he was well-regarded and valued by his patients.

On top of Dr Lim's 13-month suspension, he will also be censured and have to give a written undertaking to the Singapore Medical Council that he will not reoffend. 

He will have to pay the costs and expenses of the proceedings as well.