DR PORNTHIP: MORE QUESTIONS

In blogger Rocky Bru's post here, and following a commentator's suggestion, he proposed that the Government appoints a foreign pathologist /forensic expert to do the second autopsy with Dr Pornthip. In the interest of justice, there should not be any reason for opposing the proposal.

But what interests me more was Rocky's reference to My Sinchew's article, "Wanted: Pornthip's head!" which contained the following short paragraph:

Thanks to the intervention by Pornthip to conduct a second post-mortem on a wealthy Thai MP back in 1999, earlier police reports pointing at him committing suicide was overturned, resulting in a drastic twist in the development of the case.

Sinchew did not elaborate further. It was referring to the high profile case of  a powerful and wealthy Thai Member of Parliament, Hangthong Thammawattana. However, what Sinchew reported was in fact only a small part of the story. The full story of the case, which surprisingly was not covered extensively by bloggers except a brief mention by Anak Bangsa Malaysia here, should be made known as it casts further doubt on Dr Pornthip's reputation. The case has an eerie parallel to that of Teoh Beng Hock (TBH), which led to Dr Pornthip being probed for breaching medical ethics by the Thai Medical Council.

The Hangthong Thammawattana Case

In September 1999, Hangthong Thammawattana was found shot in his younger brother’s (Noppadol Thammawattana) bedroom clutching a gun in his hand. Hangthong Thammawattana was the administrator of his family’s vast fortunes.

The first autopsy conducted by the Thai police found that Hangthong committed suicide. The case was closed as a suicide.

Dr Pornthip did not agree to the police findings. Her team, which included Scottish pathologist Dr Adrian Linacre, then conducted a second autopsy and concluded that Hangthong was murdered. Dr Pornthip went public in announcing her findings. Noppadol was subsequently arrested in 2003 for allegedly conspiring to murder his elder brother Hangthong.

In his defence, Noppadol sought and obtained court permission for the third autopsy that took place on January 2006. The third autopsy was headed by Sawet Kanluan, a forensic pathologist based in Chicago, and  was jointly carried out by a team of forensic physicians from five universities a month later. The findings of the third autopsy was consistent with the first, i.e. suicide.  The team also included American criminalist Henry C. Lee, who likewise concluded that Hangthong's death was a suicide.

Interestingly, the experts who conducted the third autopsy are people who had taught Dr Pornthip (i.e. they were her teachers!). In his testimony in court (read here), Dr Supoj Jamsuwan, deputy head of Chulalongkorn University’s Department of Forensic Medicine, said

"...respected experts from Chulalongkorn, Khon Kaen, Chiang Mai and Mahidol universities had jointly conducted the third autopsy. 'Some of them are those who have taught Khunying Pornthip, Supoj said. Without mentioning anyone by name, he said someone viewed Thailand’s forensic science as lacking standards and had tried to set the standards herself.

Dr Supoj was, needless to say, referring to Dr Pornthip when he alluded to "someone...had tried to set the standards herself."

Consequently, Noppadol was acquitted of Hangthong's murder by the Thai Criminal Court. The court ruled that substantial evidences showed that Hangthong committed suicide (read here).

Following his acquittal, Noppadol filed a defamation lawsuit, claiming over one billion baht of damage, against Dr Porntip and Dr Thamrong Chirachariyavej, the physician who also performed Hangthong’s autopsy with her, for giving a false autopsy report of his brother Hangthong. However, a Provincial Court cleared Dr Pornthip of defaming Noppadol (read here). The court says Dr Pornthip did not break any academic principle in doing her work and her statement was made in a professional capacity.

Probe into Dr Porntip's Alleged Breach of Medical Ethics 

However, that did not stop Noppadol from filing in September 2007 a complaint with the Thai Medical Council to launch an investigation as to whether Dr Porntip had breached the medical ethics related to her autopsy of Hangthong (read here and here).

Professor Amnaj Kulsalanan, Secretary-General of the Medical Council, said a committee of the council would investigate the issue and that he had sought the opinion of the Thai Royal College of Pathology as well as of the complainant and Dr Pornthip.

Professor Amnaj said the committee would find out whether the autopsy carried out by Dr Porntip was up to standard; whether she had honestly issued the certificate of the autopsy result; and whether Dr Porntip's action had violated the autopsy standard of the Royal College of Pathology or not. If Dr Pornthip is found to have breached ethics, she faces punishment ranging from a written warning to removal of her medical licence.

Professor Amnaj said that the investigation would take time as the panel would have to listen to opinions from two sides, adding that it would be completed within the year (i.e. 2007).

However, this writer has searched the internet to find out the results of the investigation but found none. It can be presumed therefore that the investigation is still on-going and that the Council has not reached a verdict.

What can be concluded from the above is that

1. Dr Pornthip erred in her second autopsy, forcing the court to order a third autopsy which found that Hangthong committed suicide (the same conclusion arrived at by the first autopsy). Regardless of what one may say about the Hangthong case, nothing can take away from the fact that Dr Pornthip did make a mistake. If we relate this to TBH case, what guarantee do we have that she will not make the same mistake? What guarantee do we have that other interested parties will not file for a third autopsy if they find it necessary to contest her findings. It is in this context that Rocky's proposal has a strong case. Someone must monitor her autopsy.
   
2. Dr Pornthip is still under investigation for the alleged breach of medical ethics in conducting the second autopsy. Whatever the outcome of the investigation, the fact that she is being probed would be enough to cast doubt on her character and integrity. More importantly, can our court allow the second autopsy to be performed while she is still under investigation by the Thai Medical Council? What does our law says with regard to this situation?

The TBH case is being dragged far longer than it should, all because Gobind & Co - and the opposition camp in general - treat it as a political game. The Coroner must put a stop to this and force a final closure.