Medical Council in Ireland made no findings against Dr. Samuel van Eeden- 22/05/2012. The Medical Council Inquiry did not find Dr. van Eeden guilty of any of the allegations of Poor Professional Performance or Professional Conduct.
The Medical Council in Ireland heard the case of Dr. Samuel van Eeden in the fitness-to-practice committee of the Medical Council on May 22, 2012. This hearing stems from a formal complaint from a neighbouring medical practice to the Medical Council regarding the offering of an Intravenous Cholesterol lowering drug Phosphatidylcholine in the Practice of Dr. Samuel van Eeden.
The Fitness-to-practice committee concluded the hearing and the case on the same day. No findings were made against Dr. Samuel van Eeden and no findings of Poor Professional Performance or Professional Conduct were made against Dr. van Eeden after hearing all the evidence. The Inquiry invoked Section 67(a) of the Medical Practitioners Act, which allowed Dr. van Eeden to give an undertaking not to continue administering the drug and made no finding against Dr. van Eeden.
The complete final findings of the case unfortunately were not published and unfortunately not reflected in publications in THE IRISH TIMES or IRISH INDEPENDENT. Dr. Samuel van Eeden regrets the omission of the final conclusion of the Committee from the article in particular THE IRISH TIMES. Dr. van Eeden regrets the fact that no mention is made in any of the publications that no findings were made on any of the allegations.
Dr. van Eeden offered to suspend the offering of the Intravenous drug and accepted the opinion from Dr. Blake, Consultant Cardiologist that not enough Medical Evidence and clinical trials exist to accept this treatment as an offering to clients with High Cholesterol. The Expert Consultant witness of the Medical Council acknowledge the fact that the treatment was offered as an adjunctive treatment to existing treatment protocols and no harm was done to anyone and that the patients were informed by Dr. van Eeden of the nature of the treatment. He further acknowledged that all the clients of Dr. van Eeden were managed according to acceptable Guidelines for the Management of the high cholesterol. He was critical only of the use of the adjunctive treatment with Intravenous Phosphatidylcholine.
The Fitness-to-practice Committee further heard evidence from four patients of Dr. van Eeden who had the treatment. These clients all confirmed that they were informed that the drug was used off-license and was not mainstream treatment for high cholesterol. All clients were fully informed and consented to the treatment before treatment commenced out of their own choice.
The treatment with Intravenous Phosphatidylcholine was offered to clients as an adjunctive treatment to existing standard cholesterol guidelines and management. The Committee heard evidence that no client were instructed to replace current standard treatments with the adjunctive treatment with Phosphatidylcholine. Dr. van Eeden voluntary offered not to continue offering the treatment with Phosphatidylcholine and the Committee accepted this undertaking. Dr. van Eeden undertook to continue practicing Evidence Based Medicine.