FMT:
Anaesthesiologists warn against interference in patient care
Two bodies describe the recent TPA directive as a profit-driven intrusion into medical decision-making

The anaesthesiologists’ groups said medical treatment must be guided by professional judgment, patient needs, and evidence-based practice. (Bernama pic)
PETALING JAYA: The Malaysian Society of Anaesthesiologists, and the College of Anaesthesiologists, Academy of Medicine of Malaysia, have voiced concern over a recent circular by a third-party administrator recommending that surgeons prioritise local anaesthesia over general anaesthesia for surgical procedures.
They described the directive as a profit-driven intrusion into medical decision-making, saying it represented “an unethical attempt to dictate patient care”.
“Medical treatment must be guided by professional judgment, patient needs, and evidence-based practice, not financial imperatives imposed by insurers or TPAs,” they said in a joint statement.
The two anaesthesiologists’ groups said anaesthesia was a complex specialty requiring careful, individualised decisions as every patient presents unique challenges.
While local anaesthesia was appropriate for many procedures, it could not be applied as a blanket rule, they said.
“Generalising its use without proper medical assessment risks compromising patient safety, surgical outcomes, and ethical standards of care,” they said.
The groups also cautioned that undermining surgeons’ clinical judgment could erode professional autonomy and place undue pressure on doctors to prioritise cost over care, potentially endangering patient safety and leading to unnecessary litigation.
They said decisions on whether surgeries should be performed as daycare or in-patient procedures, and on which anaesthetic method to use, should remain with the treating surgeon and anaesthesiologist in consultation with patients.
They noted instances where insurers had declined approvals despite proper justification, forcing patients to make out-of-pocket payments before seeking claims. Such denials imposed unnecessary administrative hurdles.
They also said patients had the right to decide, together with their doctors, on the type of procedure and anaesthesia relevant to their condition. Factors such as the nature of surgery, comorbidities, and risk of complications must guide these decisions.
The groups urged insurers, TPAs, and managed care organisations to respect medical autonomy and work collaboratively with healthcare professionals to improve outcomes rather than impose prescriptive directives.
“Every patient deserves safe, evidence-based, and individualised anaesthetic care. Our commitment to patient safety is at the core of our opposition to any directive that threatens clinical autonomy,” they said.
The Private Medical Practitioners’ Association of Selangor and Kuala Lumpur and the Malaysian Medical Association have also criticised the directive.
They described the directive as a profit-driven intrusion into medical decision-making, saying it represented “an unethical attempt to dictate patient care”.
“Medical treatment must be guided by professional judgment, patient needs, and evidence-based practice, not financial imperatives imposed by insurers or TPAs,” they said in a joint statement.
The two anaesthesiologists’ groups said anaesthesia was a complex specialty requiring careful, individualised decisions as every patient presents unique challenges.
While local anaesthesia was appropriate for many procedures, it could not be applied as a blanket rule, they said.
“Generalising its use without proper medical assessment risks compromising patient safety, surgical outcomes, and ethical standards of care,” they said.
The groups also cautioned that undermining surgeons’ clinical judgment could erode professional autonomy and place undue pressure on doctors to prioritise cost over care, potentially endangering patient safety and leading to unnecessary litigation.
They said decisions on whether surgeries should be performed as daycare or in-patient procedures, and on which anaesthetic method to use, should remain with the treating surgeon and anaesthesiologist in consultation with patients.
They noted instances where insurers had declined approvals despite proper justification, forcing patients to make out-of-pocket payments before seeking claims. Such denials imposed unnecessary administrative hurdles.
They also said patients had the right to decide, together with their doctors, on the type of procedure and anaesthesia relevant to their condition. Factors such as the nature of surgery, comorbidities, and risk of complications must guide these decisions.
The groups urged insurers, TPAs, and managed care organisations to respect medical autonomy and work collaboratively with healthcare professionals to improve outcomes rather than impose prescriptive directives.
“Every patient deserves safe, evidence-based, and individualised anaesthetic care. Our commitment to patient safety is at the core of our opposition to any directive that threatens clinical autonomy,” they said.
The Private Medical Practitioners’ Association of Selangor and Kuala Lumpur and the Malaysian Medical Association have also criticised the directive.
Do wonder if the current model is not working for the common good and time for something new? Trump just launched TrumpRx to bypass insurance based purchased of drug to patient purchase of cheaper price of the same drug?
ReplyDeleteFrom whatsapp.
ReplyDeleteEither way, they have to pay, it is a question if they repent first before paying or paying without any chance or not wanting to repent.
Dear Friends,
.
Today (30.7.2025) after 3 long years MOH finally withdrew the criminal case against me for possession & dispensing ivermectin at my clinic when they did a "sting operation" and raided my clinic in June 2021.
I was charged 1 year later in June 2022. (I shall refer to this as Case #1).
In the meantime MAAFIM invited me to jointly get the courts to review the interpretation of the relevant Acts concerning doctors' right to prescribe & dispense ivermectin. (Case #2, filed in Sept 2022)
Case #2 proceeded first as it only required a legal interpretation.
CASE #2:
High Court - decided against us.
Court of Appeal - all 3 judges agreed with us: doctors are allowed to prescribe & dispense ivermectin to their patients regardless whether the ivermectin is registered or not.
Federal Court (3.3.2025) - all 3 judges agreed with CoA decision.
Conclusion - doctors are allowed to prescribe & dispence ivermectin to their patients, even if the drug is not registered.
Implication - there is no case against me.
CASE #1:
The offence is punishable under Section 12(1) of the Sale of Drugs Act 1952, with a maximum fine of RM25,000 or imprisonment of up to three years or both, upon conviction.
Case #1 depended on the outcome of Case #2.
While waiting for the outcome of Case #2, I had to attend court 12 times (about every other month) each time only to get the next "case management" date pending outcome of Case #2.
But even after the Federal Court decision on 3.3.2025, the AGC did not instruct the MOH prosecuting officer (PO) to withdraw the case. I had to attend court 3 more times until they withdrew it today.
DR NICHOLAS JAMES CASE (KK SABAH)
Although I was the first to be raided, Dr Nick was the first to be charged.
He was raided in August 2021 and charged in Jan 2022 (for possession of ivermectin)
Although he pleaded guilty at first, he later changed his plea on the advice of a lawyer (who later became his counsel).
His lawyer argued that the issue of possession under Regulation 7(1) (a) of the Control of Drugs and Cosmetic Regulations 1984 is ultra vires (beyond the powers of) to that of Article 74(1) of the Federal Constitution.
The judge agreed. Although the prosecution proposed DNAA, the judged acquitted him (30.3.2023). MOH did not appeal, so the decision was final.
This case alone should have been enough for MOH to withdraw the case against me. But they didn't.
THE WIDER IMPLICATION
1) Although the case resulted from the use of ivermectin for COVID-19, the decision allows us to use it for the prevention or treatment of any disease/condition if deemed beneficial.
Ivermectin is emerging as a treatment for many types of cancer.
There are already many preclinical studies, but no clinical studies yet.
Although so far we only have case reports and testimonies (some with amazing results), it should be considered especially for those cancer patients for whom conventional treatments have failed. There is nothing to lose. And we can now safely prescribe & dispense ivermectin without fear of being raided anymore.
Hopefully clinical studies on ivermectin for cancer will be done soon.
2) Although the case was specific for ivermectin, it should also apply to all other Schedule B drugs.
[Continue in next comment post]
A BIG THANK YOU
ReplyDeleteI thank GOD for this final outcome.
The fight to use ivermectin to save people from COVID-19 may have an even bigger and longer impact in its (potential) use in treating cancer. In fact more diseases are joining the list of being amenable to treatment with ivermectin.
I thank Dato Dr Gurdial Singh Nijar for his brilliance in interpreting the relevant Acts (and convincing the judges) that has allowed us doctors to do what's best for our patients.
I thank MAAFIM and its leadership (especially Dr Vijaendreh Subramaniam and Dr Paramjit Kaur) for sacrificing a lot in the pursuit for justice for all doctors and our patients.
I thank MAECC (especially Capt Dr Wong Ang Peng, Prof Dr Mustafa Ali, Raymond Raaj Naidu & Sam Sia) and all the supporters for the relentless promotion and publicity for the potential good ivermectin could have done for the nation if it had been widely accepted.
I thank PPIM (especially Tokki) for supporting us all the way.
I thank Tan Sri Lee Kim Yew for being the #1 Ivermectin supporter and MAECC Patron.
I thank everyone who has supported the fight to make ivermectin available to those who needed it, and for supporting me and others who got into trouble for our stand on ivermectin.
(If I missed mentioning anyone who has contributed much in this "mission" please forgive me - there are too many to name🙏)
Thank you.
DR AMIR FARID ISAHAK
30.7.2025
There is STILL no evidence that Ivermectin saved a single life from COVId.
ReplyDeleteWhile Mrna vaccines ,which prevented millions of infections get demonised by the very same people and groups that promote Ivermectin.
I call out Bullshit as I see it.