MP Doran raises concern over criteria used in General Practitioner approval process

GREAT BAY--Member of Parliament Egbert J. Doran raised concerns on Thursday based on statements made by Prime Minister Dr. Luc Mercelina in Parliament earlier in the week regarding the approval process for a doctor to practice as a general practitioner in St. Maarten.

Speaking in Parliament at the time, the PM stated that, while substituting for Minister of Public Health, Social Development and Labor, he was presented with an advice concerning the denial of an application because the doctor did not have specialization as a family doctor. He later stated that only four of nineteen general practitioners in St. Maarten have that specialization certificate.

Doran made clear that he did not want to assume facts that had not been fully clarified. However, his concern was whether the same doctor, or the same type of approval process, was allowed to proceed despite concerns raised in the advice, and whether personal knowledge of the doctor influenced that approval.

Doran described the statement as disturbing, especially coming from a Prime Minister who is also a healthcare professional. According to Doran, if the Prime Minister was aware of questions surrounding certification, knowingly allowing the situation to continue does not automatically make it right.

The concern became more serious when the Prime Minister explained that, while acting as Minister of VSA, he approved a matter involving what appeared to be the same doctor because he personally knew the individual and was familiar with her work.

Doran immediately questioned whether the Prime Minister was setting a standard where personal knowledge of a doctor can influence approval to practice, instead of the decision being based solely on qualifications, legal requirements and professional advice.

“Am I to understand that if you did not know the individual, they would not get an opportunity, even if they were qualified?” Doran asked through the Chair.

For Doran, that explanation raised a larger concern about fairness, equal treatment and the integrity of the medical authorization process. He warned that public health decisions cannot be based on personal familiarity, but must be grounded in law, professional standards and proper advice from the relevant authorities.

Doran also questioned whether the Prime Minister had supported, signed, promoted, recommended or pressured the approval of any medical professional to practice in St. Maarten after negative advice had been issued by the Department of Public Health, the Council of Public Health, the Inspectorate or any other competent body.

The MP made clear that the issue is not only about one doctor. He said it is about whether the system protects patients and whether the Government of St. Maarten is exposing itself to liability by allowing medical professionals to practice despite questions about their qualifications or legal requirements.

“If something were to go wrong, God forbid, with a patient in this person’s care, who then carries that liability?” Doran asked. “Is it the acting minister who signed it? Is it the sitting minister? Is it the medical institution? Or does the Government of St. Maarten carry that responsibility?”

According to Doran, the country’s concern is not internal party conflict or political back-and-forth. The real concern, he said, is whether medical licensing decisions are being handled properly, safely and lawfully, especially in healthcare, where decisions directly affect people’s lives.

“This is the country’s concern,” Doran stated. “The country’s concern is whether medical licenses and decisions were handled in accordance with the law and not based on who someone knows.”

Doran called for clear answers from the Prime Minister, stressing that long-standing practice does not remove the need for legal compliance, patient protection and government accountability, especially in healthcare.

For Doran, the matter raises a fundamental question: if the Prime Minister knew there were concerns about certification and still approved a doctor based partly on personal knowledge, who protects the patient, and who carries responsibility if something goes wrong?

The discussion also comes amid broader public concern following statements in Parliament about whether all general practitioners practicing in St. Maarten meet the specific legal and professional requirements applicable locally. The issue has prompted calls for clarity on the difference between being a qualified medical doctor, being registered or authorized to practice in St. Maarten, and having the specialization required to function as a general practitioner under local rules.

Doran said that distinction must be clearly explained to the public, because careless wording can create fear and uncertainty. At the same time, he said the Government must provide clear answers if medical professionals were allowed to practice despite negative advice or unresolved questions about certification.

The MP said the public deserves to know that health-related decisions are being taken through a transparent and lawful process, and that patient safety remains the first priority.

‍