Overwhelming vote: Medical Council sanctions doctors in Thaksin case
Over 60 votes from 69 members override Somsak's veto, with the Medical Council affirming their commitment to medical ethics and doing what is right in their roles.
The Medical Council has reaffirmed its decision to sanction three doctors involved in the treatment of former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra on the 14th floor of Police General Hospital, despite a veto from Public Health Minister Somsak Thepsuthin.
The Medical Council convened on Thursday (June 12, 2025) to finalise its ruling on the disciplinary actions against the three doctors. This came after Somsak, in his capacity as Special President of the Medical Council, vetoed the original decision.
The three doctors in question had been subject to penalties in a ruling issued on May 8, 2025 are Dr Ruamthip Suphanan, from the Prison Hospital, was recommended for a warning; two others—Pol Lt Gen Dr Sophonrat Singhajaru, former Chief Doctor at Police General Hospital and currently Assistant Commissioner-General of the Royal Thai Police, and Pol Lt Gen Dr Thaweesilp Vejvitarn, the current Chief Doctor—were recommended for suspension of their medical licences.
Somsak’s veto, which blocked the sanctions, followed the Medical Council's decision regarding the treatment of Thaksin, who had been receiving care at Police General Hospital after being sentenced to jail by the court. However, on the very first night, Thaksin was transferred from prison to the hospital due to reported health issues.
Prof Dr Prasit Watanapa, the First Vice-President of the Medical Council, stated that 68 out of 69 eligible members of the Medical Council attended the meeting and voted to override the decision of the Special President of the Medical Council. The vote exceeded two-thirds of the eligible council members, thus confirming the original decision made on May 8, 2025.
Dr Prasit confirmed that the order for the disciplinary action against the three doctors will be issued on Friday (June 13), as the council has now ratified the decision, enabling immediate action.
During today’s meeting, the Medical Council engaged in a transparent process of listening to opinions, with Somsak providing his input on the veto of the Medical Council’s decision.
Simultaneously, council members who had not attended the previous meeting were provided with documents related to the veto issued by Somsak two weeks ago. Today, the Medical Council compared this information, outlining the original decision and the veto. After careful analysis, each member of the council exercised their judgment before casting their vote.
Dr Prasit emphasized that the process was transparent and clear, as every council member made their decision independently.
When asked about the result of the vote, Prasit clarified that it wasn’t just a simple majority exceeding two-thirds. He explained that each case was considered individually. For all three cases, more than 60 council members agreed with the original decision, out of 69 eligible votes.
In response to calls for the disclosure of the names of the doctors who voted, Dr Prasit stated that doctors from various institutions and generations, as well as over 50,000 Thai citizens who signed the petition, are urging the Medical Council to uphold the principles of correctness and maintain professional ethics. He confirmed that all council members were aware of their responsibility and were committed to acting accordingly.
He emphasised that these actions were not seen as pressure but as encouragement, as they aligned with the council’s values.
"However, some groups are using certain mechanisms to prevent the Medical Council from doing what is right and adhering to professional ethics. They are trying to force us to act against our will. This can be considered pressure, and in some cases, it could even be seen as intimidation," he added.
When asked about Somsak’s use of the Administrative Court’s ruling in his explanation, Prasit expressed that he was not concerned. He explained that the investigation process involved 10 meetings, each lasting between 1 and 6 hours. In total, more than 60 hours of work were dedicated to the case over four months. Today, the council revisited the matter, reflecting on the decision made on May 8. He believed sufficient time had been spent thoroughly considering the issue.
Responding to Somsak’s statement that today’s ruling would set a standard for new doctors and might cause them to fear carrying out their duties, Prasit affirmed that both new and experienced doctors are taught the same principles. They understand medical ethics and the importance of doing what is right in their roles.
He emphasised that the council is acting in accordance with what they have been taught. He believes that medical students will view this case as a learning opportunity, understanding that the role of a doctor extends beyond treating patients—it also involves maintaining medical standards.
