Table of Contents
Controversial Abtwil doctor receives a six-year professional ban
Manfred Doepp “severely abused” the trust of the health authorities. He is no longer trustworthy: This is how the St. Gallen Health Department explains its decision. The doctor defends himself.
The Abtwil doctor Manfred Doepp in the “Kassenrutsch” program from February 2021.
Screenshot: SRF
In recent years he has been in the public eye like no other doctor in St. Gallen. Mostly not very positive. The Abtwil doctor Manfred Doepp had fallen into twilight because of his treatment methods for cancer patients. In February 2021, relatives made serious allegations against him on the Swiss television program “Kassenjagd”. He treated her seriously ill father wrongly. Family members of other patients reported similar experiences.
Doepp defended himself against the accusations and emphasized: The patients had rejected any conventional medical treatment. «I cannot incapacitate the patients. I can’t force them to do something they don’t want to do.” The television program and the allegations are a “tendentious denigration”.
The Abtwil doctor is a nuclear medicine specialist and expert in energy medicine with his own practice. Today he hardly works in conventional medicine any more; he mainly uses energy medicine and naturopathic procedures.
Various allegations examined
The St.Gallen Health Department opened regulatory proceedings against the doctor after the “Kassenjagd” broadcast. Then it became quiet. For a long time. When asked repeatedly, the process was not yet completed. Then suddenly: The Health Department had completed the disciplinary proceedings against Manfred Doepp. A little later, upon request, an excerpt from the decision follows, several pages long.
This makes it clear that Doepp’s other behavior weighs more seriously in the overall assessment than the allegations made against his treatment methods. That’s why he appeared before the St.Gallen district court in late summer and was sentenced to a suspended prison sentence of twelve months for multiple forgery of documents. From autumn 2021 to spring 2022, he issued 51 Covid vaccination certificates and 409 recovery certificates.
“Serious abuse of trust”
From the current decision of the Health Department it is clear – as was already the case from the district court’s reasons for the judgment – that doctors were only allowed to access test certificates via the federal IT system. In the canton of St.Gallen, only Doepp and another doctor did not comply. “The continued retrieval of vaccination and recovery certificates by Dr. Doepp can only be explained by the fact that he either misunderstood the department’s information in a grossly negligent manner or consciously ignored the applicable regulations,” said the health department.
The Abtwil doctor continued with this even after the department informed him that it had expanded the supervisory procedure to include his unlawful retrieval of certificates. The Health Department also states: “This behavior clearly represents a deliberate disregard of the official requirements.” Doepp “severely abused” the trust of the health authorities. His trustworthiness is no longer there. And so Doepp is banned from practicing his profession for a period of six years.
The professional ban is a serious interference in the life of the doctor. The Health Department also knows this: Due to his field of activity and his age, it will actually be impossible for him to find a job as an employed doctor and work there under supervision. Doepp is 78. “It can therefore be assumed that Dr. Doepp will or would have to give up his medical practice in the next few years anyway,” the decision states. The doctor testified before the district court that he still works an average of around 40 percent.
Patients were inadequately informed about treatment
And how does the health department assess the allegations made by relatives against the Abtwil doctor?
It explains: Doepp is a co-founder and board member of the German Society for Energy and Information Medicine and was also a member of the Swiss Society for a time. He cannot be denied sufficient knowledge in the field of bioresonance. He has also been dealing with the enzyme therapy he uses for years – however, it is an experimental therapy and not a standard treatment against cancer. Doepp not only inadequately informed his patients about this, but did not inform them at all. In doing so, he violated his duty to provide information.
The department criticizes other points. Doepp’s documents did not give the impression of organized medical histories; there were also doubts about their completeness; in one case the medical history was completely missing. He also prescribed medication to a patient several times without having sufficiently clarified her health beforehand.
What follows is a whole list of violations on record and previously complained about behavior – all of this affects the trustworthiness of the Abtwil doctor, according to the health department.
Doepp did not accept the district court’s ruling and filed an appeal. And he is also challenging the health department’s disciplinary decision. This means he will probably be in his practice – and also in the public eye – for a longer period of time. One thing might be dear to him. He would probably be happy to do without the other thing.
## Open-Ended Questions for Discussing Dr. Doepp’s Case:
**I. Ethical Considerations in Medicine**
1. **The article suggests Dr. Doepp used alternative therapies like energy medicine and enzyme therapy for cancer treatment. Do you think patients should be informed about experimental treatments as alternatives to standard care? Where should the line be drawn between patient autonomy and responsible medical advice?**
2. **Dr. Doepp claims his patients rejected conventional treatment. How can we balance a patient’s right to choose their treatment with the ethical responsibility of doctors to provide the best possible care based on scientific evidence?**
3. **The article mentions Dr. Doepp’s “inadequate” patient information regarding experimental therapies. What are the ethical implications of providing incomplete or potentially misleading information about treatment options?**
**II. Transparency and Trust in Healthcare**
1. **Dr. Doepp was found to have issued fraudulent Covid vaccination and recovery certificates. How does this action impact public trust in healthcare professionals? What are the broader consequences of such actions for society?**
2. **The Health Department states Dr. Doepp ”severely abused” the trust of health authorities. How can healthcare institutions rebuild trust after such breaches occur? What measures can be taken to prevent similar situations in the future?**
3. **Dr. Doepp’s case raises questions about the vetting and oversight of medical professionals. What mechanisms are in place to ensure the competence and ethical conduct of doctors? How can these mechanisms be improved?**
**III. Legal and Professional Consequences**
1. **Dr. Doepp received a suspended prison sentence and a six-year ban from practicing medicine. Do you think these penalties are appropriate for his actions? Should there be different consequences for different types of medical misconduct?**
2. **Dr. Doepp is challenging both the court ruling and the Health Department’s decision. What are the potential implications of these appeals? How might they affect future cases involving medical misconduct?**
3. **Given Dr. Doepp’s age and the nature of the ban, what are the potential repercussions for his professional life and livelihood? How do we balance disciplinary action with the rights and needs of aging medical professionals?**
**IV. The Role of Media in Shaping Public Perceptions**
1. **The article mentions Dr. Doepp’s public profile before the allegations. How does media coverage influence public perception of controversial medical figures? Does it contribute to a balanced and nuanced understanding of complex medical issues?**
2. **
The article quotes extensively from the “Kassenjagd” program. How do you think television programs like this impact patients’ trust and understanding of medical treatment?
3. **What are the ethical considerations for media outlets when reporting on controversial medical cases? How can they ensure responsible and accurate reporting without sensationalizing sensitive issues?**
These open-ended questions are designed to stimulate discussion and encourage participants to share their perspectives on the multifaceted issues raised in the article.
