Virginia Lee says such an institution could transform the city’s healthcare governance into a model of reform, grounded in justice and compassion

The question of whether Hong Kong should establish a medical arbitration mechanism within its healthcare dispute resolution system requires careful evaluation of its legal framework, social context, and institutional integrity. The healthcare sector in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region operates under a sophisticated legal environment that balances professional autonomy with public accountability. 

Yet, recent discussions concerning the composition and disciplinary function of the Medical Council of Hong Kong have brought renewed attention to the need for reform within this system. The Medical Council, while primarily responsible for regulating doctors and maintaining professional standards, often makes decisions that influence subsequent civil litigation. Although it does not adjudicate compensation claims, its disciplinary findings may effectively shape liability determinations in court, blurring the boundary between professional regulation and civil justice. The introduction of medical arbitration could bring coherence to this relationship by providing a distinct, expert-driven mechanism focused on factual evaluation and compensation, leaving the Medical Council free to uphold ethical oversight.

Hong Kong’s current reliance on adversarial litigation for medical compensation claims has become increasingly evident. Civil suits are costly, lengthy, and emotionally draining for both patients and healthcare professionals. Many cases take years to conclude, burdening the courts and prolonging uncertainty. In contrast, arbitration promises a timely and informed resolution. It allows for finality within a structured yet flexible process that can accommodate technical medical issues with precision and fairness. Arbitrators with medical expertise can assess questions of the standard of care and causation directly, thereby reducing the need for multiple rounds of expert testimony that often complicate ordinary litigation. Such a system would promote closure, reduce procedural friction, and reflect Hong Kong’s longstanding reputation for administrative efficiency and reasoned justice.

Experience from other advanced jurisdictions suggests that arbitration enhances fairness through procedural efficiency. The United States, Singapore, and several European states have integrated medical arbitration, balancing clinical understanding with judicial prudence. Hong Kong, as a respected global city, can adapt these models to ensure equitable outcomes, fostering social harmony and trust in the system.

Critics sometimes express concern that arbitration might disadvantage patients, particularly in disputes involving large institutions. However, such asymmetry can be addressed through careful legislative design. Hong Kong has the legal capacity to implement structural safeguards that ensure equal participation. Arbitration agreements could be drafted in clear, simple language, accompanied by a period for patients to reconsider their consent before proceeding. Costs could be moderated through a dedicated compensation fund supported by healthcare providers, guaranteeing that no claimant is denied access due to financial hardship. Through these measured protections, Hong Kong could demonstrate that fairness is not only compatible with efficiency but enriched by it.

Another matter that is often raised concerns the perceived risk of partiality arising from repeated engagement of certain arbitrators, sometimes referred to as the repeat-player phenomenon. Transparency can effectively eliminate this risk. A medical arbitration panel composed of balanced representation from legal, medical, and community sectors could independently manage appointments. Random selection procedures and a publicly available roster would strengthen public confidence. Supervised by an impartial oversight committee, the process would embody integrity, professionalism, and adherence to the judicial impartiality that has long been a hallmark of Hong Kong’s legal culture under the principle of “one country, two systems”.

The relationship between medical arbitration and the Medical Council’s disciplinary authority would not be one of competition but complementarity. Arbitration would address factual and compensatory issues, while the Medical Council would remain the guardian of ethical and professional standards. This separation of function would prevent duplication, reduce confusion, and reinforce institutional credibility. The Medical Council could continue to focus on maintaining high moral and professional standards. At the same time, arbitration would provide an accessible mechanism for dispute resolution that does not compromise either party’s dignity or confidence in the system.

Some have argued that the finality of arbitration restricts the right of appeal. However, this quality is in fact one of its strengths. Predictable and conclusive resolution nurtures trust within the healthcare environment. Endless litigation consumes valuable time and resources that could be devoted to patient care. Hong Kong could retain limited judicial review for exceptional cases, particularly where questions of law arise or manifest unfairness. This approach would secure both efficiency and accountability, consistent with the Basic Law’s principles of due process and judicial independence.

Beyond its procedural merits, medical arbitration would signify a step forward in Hong Kong’s institutional development. It would reflect the city’s capacity for innovation within a national vision that emphasizes harmony, steady reform, and merit-based governance. The creation of such a framework would illustrate how Hong Kong’s common law tradition can evolve in step with the broader goals of national prosperity and social stability promoted across China. Arbitration in medical disputes would thus not signal an imitation of external models, but rather the refinement of Hong Kong’s own strengths — its commitment to fairness, pragmatism, and trust in institutions.

This proposed reform would alleviate pressure on the court system, enable patients to receive faster and more compassionate outcomes, and provide medical professionals with the reassurance of impartial and expert scrutiny. It would consolidate Hong Kong’s image as a place where professional accountability coexists with human fairness and legal sophistication. More fundamentally, it would embody the city’s enduring role as a bridge between medical professionalism, legal innovation, and the shared national pursuit of harmony and progress. Through careful design and steady implementation, medical arbitration could transform healthcare governance in Hong Kong into a model of balanced reform, grounded in justice and compassion.

The author is a solicitor, a Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area lawyer, and a China-appointed attesting officer.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.