Terminal illness and MPF early withdrawal: what doctors said in 2012

This is a rewrite of a report from March 2012; the original was a short market note.

The MPFA consulted the public on two proposals, one of which would let terminally ill members withdraw their MPF early — a sixth ground for early withdrawal. The Hong Kong Medical Association filed a submission broadly in favour, with caveats on who may certify and how the details should work.

Why did doctors back early withdrawal for the terminally ill?

Because patients with little time left should be able to access their own savings as emergency money. The association supported adding terminal illness as a sixth ground for lump-sum early withdrawal, certified only by a qualified registered western doctor for patients with less than a year to live — traditional Chinese medicine practitioners would be excluded, to avoid conflicting definitions of terminal illness.

Why would one family doctor’s signature be enough?

Because family doctors know their patients’ histories best through long-term relationships. The association’s president argued a family doctor is best placed to judge, for example, whether a liver patient faces severe failure without a transplant. A medical-sector Election Committee member added that the definition of terminal illness must be precise to avoid disputes, and the question of who pays for the certificate should be settled so poor patients are not burdened.

At the time, MPF allowed early withdrawal on five grounds only: early retirement at 60, permanent departure, total incapacity, death and small balances. Terminal illness, if adopted, would become the sixth.