No Discrimination of Witnesses for AMD

18 Apr 2008, The Straits Times

Question

Name of the Person: Selene Cheng (Miss)

...Reader asked about discrimination, not verification

I REFER to last Saturday's reply by Ms Karen Tan, corporate communications director of the Ministry of Health, 'AMD: Why details of witnesses are required', to Mr Victor Gomez's Forum letter (March 31) on the intrusive nature of the advanced medical directive for witnesses.

Ms Tan's reply completely misses the point of Mr Gomez's letter. That details of witnesses are required for verification or contact purposes is not disputed.

What Mr Gomez wanted to know is why there is discrimination with regard to the extent of the disclosure of personal details by different witnesses.

As Mr Gomez had pointed out, while the doctor could just put down his or her office address and telephone number, the nurse was required to give her home address and telephone number.

Reply

Name of the Person: Karen Tan (Ms)

Director, Corporate Communications

Ministry of Health 

No Discrimination of Witnesses for AMD

In her letter "...Reader asked about discrimination, not verification" (ST, 12 April), Miss Selene Cheng felt that there was discrimination with regards to the disclosure of personal details by different witnesses. This is certainly not the intent.

The first witness needs to be a doctor, who in his professional capacity has to ensure that the patient is of sound mind and understands the consequences of making an Advanced Medical Directive (AMD). Hence, if the doctor is needed to be reached for any clarification by the AMD Register, the work address, work phone or handphone will be necessary. The second witness can be any adult who has to be physically present to witness the signing of the AMD. We have asked for home address and contact details as anyone, even one not working, could be the second witness.

MOH is currently studying how to simplify the process of signing AMD.