PHILIPSBURG:--- Member of Parliament Egbert J. Doran raised concerns based on statements made by Prime Minister Dr. Luc Mercelina in Parliament regarding the approval process for a doctor to practice as a general practitioner in St. Maarten. The Prime Minister stated that the advice before him concerned the denial of an application because the doctor did not have a specialization in family medicine. He later stated that only four of nineteen general practitioners in St. Maarten have that specialization certificate. MP Doran’s concern was whether the Prime Minister knowingly approved a doctor despite concerns raised in the advice, and whether personal knowledge of the doctor influenced that approval.
MP Doran described that statement as disturbing, especially coming from a Prime Minister who is also a healthcare professional. According to Doran, if the Prime Minister were aware of questions surrounding certification, knowingly allowing the situation to continue does not automatically make it right.
The concern became even more serious when the Prime Minister explained that, while acting as Minister of Public Health, Social Development, and Labor, he approved a matter involving a doctor because he personally knew the individual and was familiar with her work. make headl
MP Doran immediately questioned whether the Prime Minister was setting a standard in which a doctor's personal knowledge could influence approval to practice, rather than 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 MP 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. 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 MP Doran, the country’s concern is not internal party conflict or political back-and-forth. The real concern 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.”
MP 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?