The fight over medical ethics in India has found a new front. Dr. Vivek Patel, a liver specialist who gained fame for his YouTube videos on organ donation, is now at the centre of a bitter dispute that has split the medical establishment. His supporters call him a crusader for transparency. His detractors accuse him of grandstanding and breaching patient confidentiality.
The row erupted last month when Patel published a video detailing a botched liver transplant at a prominent Delhi hospital. He did not name the patient but included enough clinical details for the family to file a complaint. The hospital retaliated by reporting him to the Medical Council of India for violating ethics guidelines.
Patel is unrepentant. "The system protects its own," he told me in a phone interview. "If I have to break a few rules to save lives, so be it." His followers agree. His YouTube channel has gained 200,000 subscribers in the past week. Online petitions demanding his support have gathered half a million signatures.
But the backlash is real. The Indian Medical Association has condemned his actions as "irresponsible." Senior doctors accuse him of undermining trust in the profession. "He is a showman, not a saviour," one surgeon muttered, refusing to be named. "He picks cases that make him look good."
The Council is now considering whether to strike him off the register. Sources say the decision could come within days. Patel knows the stakes. "If they deregister me, they will make me a martyr," he says. "And the fight will only get louder."
The battle lines are drawn. On one side: the old guard of Indian medicine, protective of its hierarchy. On the other: a new breed of doctors using social media to bypass traditional gatekeepers. This is not just about one man. It is about who gets to define medical ethics in the age of viral fame.
I have spent the past week speaking to insiders in Delhi’s medical circles. The consensus is telling. No one is neutral. Patel is either a hero or a menace. There is no middle ground.
The Health Ministry is watching. Privately, officials admit they are alarmed by the polarisation but reluctant to intervene. "This is a Council matter," a ministry source said. But everyone knows that if Patel is struck off, the political fallout will be significant. The government cannot afford to be seen as defending malpractice.
Meanwhile, the patient’s family has gone silent. They have withdrawn their complaint and refuse to comment. Some whisper they were paid off. Others say they simply want to move on.
Patel’s next video is due tomorrow. He promises it will be his most explosive yet. The medical establishment braces for impact. This story is live. It will not go away.
