Overview: A Long-Standing Medical Practice Questioned
A veteran doctor in Singapore, Dr Wong Yoke Meng, with more than four decades in medicine, has been suspended for 36 months following a disciplinary tribunal ruling that found him guilty of professional misconduct related to hormone replacement therapies (HRT). The case, which involved 18 patients and spanned 2013 to 2015, raises serious questions about the oversight of anti-ageing and wellness practices in the medical field.
What Happened: Inappropriate HRT Prescriptions
The Singapore Medical Council (SMC) charged Dr Wong with 40 counts of professional misconduct under the Medical Registration Act (MRA). Eighteen of these charges concerned inappropriate HRT prescriptions to 18 patients, who reportedly had normal hormone levels and did not exhibit symptoms warranting such therapies. The tribunal found that Dr Wong often started treatment before blood test results were available, and did not perform thorough physical examinations or gather comprehensive patient histories in many cases.
Gendered Therapies with Questionable Evidence
Among the 14 men and four women treated, several received hormone products that are not typically indicated for their sex. Three men received progesterone replacement therapy via creams containing progesterone—an approach not supported by scientific evidence for males. Conversely, four women received testosterone replacement therapy, administered through injections or creams—a practice not common outside specific conditions such as hypoactive sexual desire disorder when following International guidelines.
Scope of Misconduct: Records, Interactions, and Potential Harm
Ten patients were prescribed more than one hormone, an action deemed inappropriate due to potential adverse interactions and unclear attribution of side effects. Medical experts cited uncertainties around hormone interactions and warned of possible harms, including tremors and testosterone levels rising out of normal ranges in some patients. The tribunal highlighted that the overall benefits of anti-ageing HRT are unproven in Singapore, and that the only likely beneficiary in Dr Wong’s practice appeared to be the clinician himself.
Tribunal Findings and Sanction
The decision grounds, published on Oct 8, described the conduct as “very egregious,” reflecting a broader pattern that extended beyond the 18 HRT cases. The tribunal criticized inadequate record-keeping and lack of appropriate examinations, noting that the doctor’s motivation appeared financial. The package portion of his wellness programme charged patients up to S$12,000 for consultations, excluding medication costs, which the tribunal viewed as incongruent with proven medical practice.
Public Policy and Professional Standards
The tribunal emphasized that prescribing hormones for anti-ageing or general wellness is not an accepted medical practice in Singapore. It underscored the absence of a general medical consensus on anti-ageing medicine, and warned that the discipline should be guided by established evidence and patient safety. Given his past convictions in other MRA breaches, the tribunal stated that a harsher penalty could have been warranted, yet opted for a 36-month suspension, effective from Oct 8, 2025, to Oct 7, 2028.
Defence and Tribunal’s Assessment
Dr Wong defended his actions by arguing that none of the 18 patients suffered actual harm, claiming that low hormone doses reduced risk. He contended that he was “optimising” hormone levels to prevent deterioration, not treating specific symptoms. The tribunal was wary of these arguments, noting the lack of corroborating guidelines and the questionable independence of supporting foreign experts who had professional ties with his clinic.
Current Status and Next Steps
As of the tribunal’s ruling, Dr Wong remains subject to the suspension. Checks on the SMC register did not reveal current practice credentials, leaving questions about his ability to legally practice in Singapore post-suspension. The case serves as a cautionary tale about the need for rigorous standards, transparent patient records, and reliance on evidence-based therapies in medical practice.
Implications for Patients and Practitioners
For patients, the case reinforces the importance of informed consent, appropriate examination, and returns to evidence-based treatments. For practitioners, it stresses the ethical obligation to avoid financially motivated treatments lacking solid scientific support, particularly in areas such as anti-ageing medicine where consensus remains elusive.
