Proposition 52K1187

Projet de loi modifiant l'arrêté royal du 21 avril 1983 fixant les modalités de l'agrément des médecins spécialistes et des médecins généralistes, en vue d'instaurer les conditions d'un débat contradictoire entre les chambres des commissions d'agrément des médecins spécialistes et le Conseil supérieur des médecins spécialistes et des médecins généralistes.

General information ¶

Submitted by

The Senate

Submission date

Aug. 28, 2007

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

professional qualifications doctor medicine access to a profession

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld N-VA LDD MR FN VB

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

Nov. 20, 2008 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

by Mr. Otlet, the rapporteur, refers to his written report.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, dear colleagues, the origin of this bill dates back a few years already, at the time when four surgeons, deemed incompetent by their peers, had been recognized in fine apt to exercise their specialty by the Minister of Public Health, on a favorable opinion of the Superior Council which acted as an appeal body. This ⁇ worrying situation undermined the confidence of patients in the training of the specialized physicians they trust.

At the time, together with my colleague Senator Jacques Brotchi, we tried to give full light on this problem and our findings were as follows. From 1994 to 2004, out of fourteen specialists candidates whom the Surgery Accreditation Chamber had refused to recognize as apt to exercise their specialty autonomously, eleven had received a positive opinion from the Supreme Council. The negative opinion of the accreditation committees was followed on average by the Superior Council only in 20% of cases.

Undoubtedly, the opinions of the approval committees were not sufficiently taken into account despite the fact that they are the most able to evaluate on the ground the qualities of candidates specialized physicians. Indeed, they are composed of active doctors and therefore always aware of the latest developments in their specialty. The Supreme Council was composed of twenty-eight general physicians and twenty-four specialized physicians who often were no longer active. It follows, for example, that the abilities of a surgeon were evaluated by an instance of fifty-two doctors, among whom only four surgeons were seated, some of whom were not even more active.

It should also be pointed out that, when the Supreme Council deviated from decisions taken by the accreditation committees, it did not motivate its decisions based on the considerations raised by those committees.

All this has led us to the bill that is submitted to us today and which is important because it is capable of ensuring and ⁇ ining quality medicine in our country. Although some changes have already been made in 2004 to improve communication between the accreditation committees and the Superior Council, the draft text has the advantage of going even further and offering legal support to the committees and the Superior Council so that decisions are duly motivated, both in substance and in form.

The two external specialist doctors that are provided by the bill will enable to illuminate the debate by their experience in their specialized field that is subject to their analysis. These experts, active in their specialty, will be able to explain the strengths and weaknesses of each candidate in light of the latest developments in medicine.

A good way also to ensure that the candidate is apt to exercise his profession is to provide that 75% of the members of the Superior Council will have to remain active in their respective discipline. Medical advances are such at present and so fast that it is obviously necessary to be in the field to understand the issues both at the level of the candidate’s training and at the level of his technical competence.

Here are, Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, dear colleagues, the various remarks I wanted to make. This project on the initiative of Senator Jacques Brotchi seems to me to be an interesting breakthrough in guaranteeing the competence of practitioners to whom patients entrust their health and sometimes even their lives.

I thank you for your attention.