On June 12, 2025, the Medical Council of Thailand convened at the Mahidolathibesra Building within the Ministry of Public Health to address a highly contentious issue that has captured public attention: the disciplinary actions against three doctors involved in treating former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra at the Police Hospital's 14th floor. The meeting, presided over by Dr. Prasit Watthanapha, Deputy President of the Medical Council, focused on reviewing a veto issued by Mr. Somsak Thepsutin, the Minister of Public Health and special President of the Medical Council, who challenged the original resolution to punish the doctors.
The background to this dispute dates back to May 8, 2025, when the Medical Council passed resolution 5/2568, deciding to sanction three physicians associated with Mr. Thaksin's treatment. One doctor received a formal warning for substandard medical practice, while two others faced suspensions of their medical licenses due to providing medical information deemed inconsistent with the facts. The Medical Council's June 12 meeting, numbered 6/2568, was tasked with considering Mr. Somsak's veto, which he had submitted after a 15-minute explanation to the Council.
During the June 12 session, 70 Medical Council members were present, although one member recused themselves due to a conflict of interest, leaving 69 eligible voters. Ultimately, 68 members participated in the vote, with over two-thirds affirming the original disciplinary resolution from May. This result effectively overruled Mr. Somsak's veto and confirmed the sanctions against the three doctors. Dr. Prasit Watthanapha described the case as one of significant public interest, involving ethical considerations at Rajatanti Hospital and Police Hospital.
Mr. Somsak's veto was grounded in his role under Section 25 of the Medical Profession Act B.E. 2525, which empowers the Minister of Public Health as the special President of the Medical Council to review and provide opinions on Council resolutions. He emphasized that medical ethics are the cornerstone of public trust in healthcare, resting on four principles: respect for patient autonomy, maximizing benefit, avoiding harm, and fairness. His veto was not a mere dissent but a carefully reasoned objection based on an extensive investigation by a special inquiry committee chaired by Dr. Amorn Leelarassamee.
This committee undertook a thorough five-month and five-day investigation. Their findings cleared Dr. Wattanachai of all charges, recommended a warning for Dr. Ruamthip for issuing a referral letter for an inmate's external treatment—which is a standard practice in correctional settings—and suggested reprimanding Pol. Lt. Gen. Dr. Sophonrat. Pol. Lt. Gen. Dr. Thavisilp was found to have committed no ethical violations. Mr. Somsak expressed serious concern that the Medical Council's final decision reversed these findings without new evidence, escalating punishments to include multi-month license suspensions.
He questioned the rationale behind such a reversal, asking whether external influences or biases might have played a role. Mr. Somsak highlighted that punishing these doctors could set a dangerous precedent, fostering a culture of fear among medical professionals and discouraging them from making crucial decisions in emergencies. He posed poignant questions to his fellow Council members about the legacy of their decision and urged them to consider if it might later be viewed as a "historical mistake". He also appealed to their conscience, asking whether any felt the punishment was excessively harsh relative to the doctors' intent and the facts.
Mr. Somsak further warned that penalizing the doctors could undermine progressive correctional policies, such as house arrest under Royal Decree B.E. 2560 Section 33, which aims to uphold human rights by allowing non-violent offenders alternatives to incarceration. He stressed that the impact of this ruling extends beyond the doctors involved, affecting the broader medical community and society at large.
Despite Mr. Somsak's objections, the Medical Council maintained its stance. Dr. Prasit clarified that the Council's deliberations were transparent and grounded in factual evidence and professional discretion. The Council confirmed that the duration of license suspensions for the two doctors differed according to the nature of their offenses. Official orders formalizing the penalties were scheduled for issuance on June 13, 2025.
Addressing concerns about a leaked Line chat group purportedly linked to the Medical Council, Dr. Prasit dismissed the notion that it was an official channel, explaining it was a group of medical members unrelated to the Council's formal operations. He emphasized that simple message acknowledgments like "Yes" stickers do not imply agreement with any particular view and do not compromise the Council's credibility.
Regarding the attachment of a Supreme Administrative Court ruling to Mr. Somsak's veto, Dr. Prasit noted that the inquiry committee had already conducted extensive reviews, including multiple sessions and document examinations, rendering additional legal comparisons inappropriate given the unique nature of medical ethics cases.
Public interest in the case remains intense, with over 50,000 Thai citizens from diverse institutions petitioning the Medical Council to uphold professional ethics and fairness. The Council affirmed its commitment to these principles, as articulated by Dr. Prasit.
Following the Council's decision, Mr. Somsak commented that he had fulfilled his responsibilities and would continue his duties without personal grievance. He mentioned plans to attend a royal decoration ceremony in Sukhothai on June 13, 2025, and expressed confusion over whether committee members had thoroughly reviewed his submitted documents.
He also addressed the medical groups protesting the decision, stating he had no personal issues and wished for everyone’s happiness, underscoring that his veto was motivated by principle rather than external pressure.
Meanwhile, June 13, 2025, was also a pivotal day for the Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Holders of Political Positions, which was set to deliberate on the legal status of former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra's stay on the 14th floor of Police Hospital. Public debate has centered on whether this stay, following his transfer from Bangkok Remand Prison for a few hours, constituted legitimate imprisonment.
The Supreme Court was expected to issue a ruling or procedural order regarding Thaksin’s sentence enforcement. Security measures and media protocols were carefully arranged, including restrictions on filming inside the court and provisions for live broadcasts outside the building.
Thaksin's legal team had previously requested a 30-day extension to submit additional documents, granted until June 23, 2025, to gather necessary information from government agencies. On June 13, Thaksin authorized his lawyer, Winyat Chartmontri, to represent him at the court hearing, as the Supreme Court had not yet summoned him to appear personally.
The legal team prepared to argue that Thaksin, acting under orders and within legal frameworks, must be judged according to the facts. The court would consider submissions from relevant bodies, including the Bangkok Remand Prison, the Department of Corrections, and the Police Hospital, before deciding on further proceedings or investigations.
As the nation awaited the Supreme Court's decisions and the Medical Council's enforcement of sanctions, the intertwined legal and ethical battles surrounding Thaksin Shinawatra's treatment and incarceration underscored the complex intersection of medicine, law, and politics in contemporary Thailand.
