According to the report of the Thanh Hoa Provincial Department of Health, on the morning of May 28, 2025, Ms. L was taken by her family to a clinic led by Dr. Duong Van Tho to treat a broken collarbone. After taking the medicine, she showed signs of decreasing appetite and loss of reflex. Realizing the situation of anaphylactic shock, Mr. Tho injected Adrenalin and applied anti-shock measures. However, at around 2:00 p.m. the same day, Ms. L died at the clinic.
Responding to Lao Dong about whether Dr. Tho's facility is licensed to perform invasive medical interventions or not, the leader of the Department of Health said that it is in the process of investigation so it cannot provide information.
However, according to the operating license (Decision No. 573/QD-SYT dated September 24, 2022), Dr. Tho's clinic is only allowed to perform simple procedures such as straining the powder, treating small wounds, circumcision, cutting tofu tumors under 5cm...
The authorities need to clarify whether this clinic has the right and conditions to perform invasive interventions such as anesthesia-prone collarbone surgery - a process that requires anesthesiologist, emergency medicine, resuscitation conditions and a professional team.
Therefore, the question is: Will Dr. Tho cross the fence and arbitrarily perform the illegal technique? And if so, where is the management agency for the entire time he has been in the profession?
The Thanh Hoa Provincial Department of Health needs to clarify: When granting the license, was the appraisal based on reality or was it based only on records? Is it necessary to have a post-term inspection or to wear a facility operating in the style of "do whatever you want"? If there have been signs of practicing beyond the scope but still not being handled early, the responsibility of the management agency is not covered by a temporary suspension decision or general report.
A death that occurred right at a private clinic cannot be concluded with the phrase "medical incident". If there are signs of professional violations or law violations, they need to be strictly handled and prosecuted if there is enough basis.
At the same time, it is necessary to find out why after Ms. L was examined at the provincial hospital where Mr. Tho worked, she returned to the private clinic of that doctor for treatment? Is there a "mixed relationship" between the public and private sectors in medical practice? Is there a case of "turning" the system for treatment outside the permitted scope?
The truth needs to be clarified. That is the only way not to have more victims like Ms. L.
