Tul Sittisomwong, the outspoken political activist, has vehemently opposed the Medical Council’s unexpected decision to delay an ethics review concerning the doctors involved in treating former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra. Tul, who is also a respected lecturer at Chulalongkorn University’s prestigious Faculty of Medicine, insists that the review must proceed punctually to uphold the public’s fragile trust.
In a bid to expedite the process, Dr. Tul plans to present a formal letter to the council’s committee this coming Tuesday. His demand is straightforward yet resolute: the ethics investigation into the medical professionals who attended to Thaksin at both the Corrections Hospital and the Police General Hospital must not be stalled any longer.
For those who might have lost track, Thaksin remains a polarizing figure, having served time for notorious corruption charges. Despite being in prison, he received treatment outside the facility for an extensive period—spanning from August 22, 2024, to February 18, 2025—prompting widespread public unease and heated discussions about ethical propriety.
Dr. Tul is emphatically concerned about the swirling social scrutiny: a perfect storm of public intrigue and skepticism. Any interference in timing, he warns, will only serve to deepen the public’s suspicions and fuel rumor mills.
Last Friday’s announcement of delaying the probe didn’t sit well with him. He speculated that receiving supplementary documents from the Corrections Department and the Police General Hospital after the deadline of January 15, 2025, amplified mistrust rather than eased it.
“I implore the council to disregard the tardy documents and to pursue the review as initially planned during the slated April 10 meeting,” Dr. Tul stated, with the tone of a man fed up with bureaucratic hindrances. “If a postponement is utterly unavoidable, it should be limited strictly to the next meeting on the agenda,” he firmly added.
This sentiment found resonance with Somchai Srisuthiyakorn, who previously held a position within the Election Commission. On the same day, Somchai voiced his own apprehensions over the mounting delays and questioned the adequacy of the reasons provided. He pointed out that these belated documents, submitted on April 1, seem to flout established deadlines, highlighting inefficiencies and a lax attitude within the council.
“Endlessly postponing the investigation simply because of new documents implies this saga will never reach a resolution,” Somchai remarked dryly, echoing a widely-felt frustration. He also openly questioned whether the council possessed the seriousness and dedication required to truly tackle the issue head-on.
As April unfolds, the stakes couldn’t be higher—not just for those directly implicated in the investigation but also for public confidence in the medical establishment. Watchers across the nation remain on tenterhooks, eager yet anxious to see whether diligence and transparency will prevail, or whether yet more twists in this already convoluted narrative await them.
I completely agree with Dr. Tul! Delaying the ethics review undermines public trust. The council needs to act promptly.
But isn’t it important to have all documents before making a decision? We can’t rush justice!
True, Dave, but constant delays just make people more suspicious. There needs to be a balance.
If delays lead to a more thorough investigation, I’m all for it. Haste makes waste.
This whole fiasco reeks of political maneuvering. Why are these doctors even being targeted?
Sam, it’s about ethics and ensuring no one’s getting special treatment. Everyone should be held accountable equally.
Well, Thaksin is a high-profile figure. Of course, it draws attention. Maybe it’s about setting an example.
As a doctor, I can see both sides. Ethics need scrutiny, but bureaucracy must not hinder justice.
Why not reform the Medical Council process? This seems like a systemic issue, BioDoc.
You’re right, there needs to be a streamline of ethics reviews for transparency.
Maybe they should digitize the process for efficiency? Just a thought.
Can someone explain why Thaksin was treated outside of prison anyway?
It’s not uncommon for high-profile figures. His health issues were deemed severe enough to require better facilities.
Seems like favoritism to me. Why not treat him the same as everyone else?
Delays are inevitable when dealing with such a complex case involving corrections and multiple hospitals.
Rick, complexity shouldn’t be an excuse for dragging feet. It undermines public confidence.
Agreed with Ivy. We need transparent communication at least if delays are necessary.
Seems like Somchai’s right to question the council’s commitment. Is more delay really just about documents?
Looks like another power play. Politics never change, do they?
The fact this is even a discussion shows deep flaws in our system. Overhaul necessary!
Agreed, Victor. Change is overdue. But where do we start?
I just hope transparency prevails and Thaksin’s case doesn’t overshadow other pressing issues.
Unfortunately, such cases always do, Meredith. We’re easily distracted by high-profile drama.
Why is everyone so surprised by these delays? Have you all forgotten how slow bureaucracies usually are?
We’ve come to accept it, but that doesn’t mean we should ignore it, Grower134. Accountability, please!
Just imagine the implications if they find ethics violations. Could change medical oversight permanently.
It could set a strong precedent, Joe. Fingers crossed for positive reform.
We need to remember how we got here: historical corruption cases and ongoing political power struggles.
In the end, let’s hope justice and truth win out. Everyone deserves a fair investigation.
As someone who’s worked within the system, delays often indicate deeper issues. The council must introspect.