Shell partners Caring Pharmacy in 'wellness' pact
To commemerate the partnership, Caring Pharmacy has launched a nationwide "Beli dan Menang" contest.
It gives customers a chance to win exclusive rewards while shopping for quality wellness essentials.
With over three decades serving Malaysian communities, Caring Pharmacy has established itself as a trusted name in health and wellness.
"The latest partnership with Shell Malaysia brings everyday essentials even closer to where Malaysians live, work, and travel," Caring Pharmacy said.
As the exclusive supplier, Caring Pharmacy is bringing in 36 selected health and wellness products.
The lineup features favourite over-the-counter products designed to address colds, minor digestive issues, and muscle or joint aches.
"In tune with shifting consumer lifestyles, the partnership allows shoppers to conveniently pick up essential health items while they fuel up, commute, or run errands," it said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Malay Mail
31 minutes ago
- Malay Mail
Malaysians, beware of unlicensed beauty doctors: Court awards RM800,000 compensation over PJ clinic's botched breast fillers
Sessions Court awarded RM800,000 in exemplary damages to a woman harmed by breast filler injections at an unlicensed Petaling Jaya beauty clinic, to deter unqualified doctors and clinics It said Malaysians should check if those giving them beauty treatments are actually doctors and whether they have Health Ministry-issued qualification to carry out aesthetic treatments It was also determined that consent form signed by patients are invalid, if the doctor did not tell the patient that they are not qualified to carry out the procedure KUALA LUMPUR, July 30 — Malaysians should make sure to ask doctors if they have the Health Ministry's licence to carry out aesthetic and beauty treatments on them, the Sessions Court in Kuala Lumpur has said in its RM800,000 decision over a breast filler injection procedure. In this medical negligence case, Sessions Court judge Saifullah Bhatti ordered a doctor who did not have the licence, a Petaling Jaya beauty clinic found to be unlicensed, and the beauty clinic's owner, to pay RM800,000 in exemplary damages to a woman over the injection of fillers into her breasts. In this case, the woman — identified only as R for privacy purposes — had experienced pain and swelling after the breast filler injections in 2020. This resulted in her later visiting multiple other doctors, undergoing two MRI scans, and undergoing three surgeries in 2021 and 2024 to remove the fillers, as well as other treatments. With the Sessions Court able to handle cases involving a maximum RM1 million amount, judge Saifullah yesterday said the compensation amount of RM800,000 would send a strong message to doctors in Malaysia to get their qualifications and only do medical procedures that are covered by their licences. The Sessions Court noted that exemplary damages are meant to raise awareness to the public on the issues in a case, and to make an example out of those being sued and to deter them from repeating the same actions they were sued for. The Sessions Court noted that the High Court had in another case in November 2024 awarded RM100,000 in exemplary damages to deter 'beauty clinics which have mushroomed nationwide offering beauty aesthetics surgeries' from performing procedures that are not covered in their licences. The Sessions Court said there is increasingly alarming news of more and more doctors being caught for performing procedures without licence: 'In many cases around the world and not just in Malaysia, patients are sometimes left to die bleeding on the operating table.' Even with the High Court having awarded RM100,000 in the 2024 case, there continues to be news of such rampant doctors, and the Sessions Court judge noted that the RM100,000 sum has not been potent enough to deter such doctors. In Malaysia, the Health Ministry's guidelines require doctors to get the ministry's 'Letter of Credentialling and Privileging' (LCP) or qualification before they can carry out aesthetic procedures — including breast filler injections — on patients. In R's case, the Sessions Court judge said the RM800,000 exemplary damages award was necessary to let Malaysians know they should check on doctors carrying out beauty treatments on them. While anyone can be blamed for not asking basic questions 'such as whether the person treating them is in the first place a doctor', the Sessions Court judge said it is harder to expect the public to know that the doctor must also have an LCP to carry out the aesthetic procedure on them. 'As such, in deciding this case, and in granting exemplary damages, it is hoped that the general public is more aware of this issue and they should now be on notice to take all necessary precautions when consulting doctors for aesthetic procedures including asking all the right questions regarding your doctors qualifications – specifically whether they have the LCP,' the judge said in a 66-page judgment released yesterday. The judge said the RM800,000 sum was justified as the case involves 'public health and safety and holding recalcitrant doctors accountable to medical law, regulations and ethics', and that it was a fair amount that should remind all doctors to get their qualifications and to stay within the limits of their certifications and their LCP. In arriving at the RM800,000 figure, the judge had noted the facts where the doctor did not have an LCP; and that the doctor had failed the examination for the LCP but her 'niat tertunda' or her intention to resit for the examination was postponed because of the movement control orders during the Covid-19 pandemic. The judge also noted that the doctor had taken her lack of the LCP more lightly than she should have as she tried to cite other inapplicable course certificates to insist she was qualified; and that the doctor had misrepresented to R that she would be injected with 100 per cent pure hyaluronic acid fillers but instead injected her with a filler which was lab-tested to be 'primarily composed of silicone'. The judge said the doctor had gone on to perform a drainage procedure on R without an LCP; and that the aesthetic centre and its owner had allowed the doctor to carry out those two procedures on R without an LCP; and that there was no proof that the aesthetic centre and its owner had Health Ministry-required licence to carry out the business. Ultimately, the Sessions Court awarded the woman R with compensation totalling RM919,009.60 in the form of RM800,000 exemplary damages, RM85,000 in general damages for her pain and suffering; and RM34,009.60 in special damages; and also awarded RM25,000 in costs to her. What R's lawsuit was about and what the court decided In her lawsuit filed in April 2023 at the Sessions Court in Kuala Lumpur, the patient R had sued Dr S, the aesthetic centre's owner SHA, and the aesthetic centre's company F to claim for compensation. R's lawsuit claimed that Dr S was negligent by carrying out an aesthetic medical procedure without proper accreditation or licensing and failing to comply with the accepted standard of care by injecting the wrong filler into R's breasts. R claimed that the other two sued were negligent by appointing an unlicensed medical practitioner to perform the procedure and for failing to meet the appropriate standard of care that was expected of them as a medical facility. The Sessions Court found Dr S to be negligent as she performed the procedure on R without the LCP accreditation, also noting that Dr S had failed to disclose to R that she was not legally qualified to perform the procedure. Dr S was also found liable, as R would not have suffered the injuries if she had not used a filler that was later found to be primarily composed of silicone. While Dr S claimed that R had accepted the risks by signing a consent form before the breast filler procedure, the Sessions Court said the patient could not have consented to what had happened to her as she had consented to a pure HA injection instead of a mainly-silicone injection. 'When a doctor performs a procedure without disclosing the fact they are not qualified (such as what happened in this case), any consent obtained under that present is invalid,' the judge said, having noted that a previous High Court decision had found that such failure would undermine a patient's ability to make informed decisions about their treatment. The Sessions Court also found SHA and F to be negligent, noting that the beauty clinic's claimed Petaling Jaya City Council licence was irrelevant as it would only be a local authority's permit to run a healthcare business and is not a valid Health Ministry-required permit to perform medical aesthetics procedures. The Sessions Court said the man SHA is just as liable as Dr S as they were business partners; and the beauty clinic's company F is a healthcare facility which had not shown any accreditation or licensing required under the Private Healthcare Facilities And Services Act 1998 and that it was not qualified to 'play host to what was essentially an unlicensed and therefore illegal business'. R was represented by lawyers Dayang Roziekah Ussin, Abu Daud Abd Rahim and Nik Amalia Suraya Nik Muhammad; while the three sued were represented by lawyer Fakhrul Azman Abu Hasan.
Malay Mail
an hour ago
- Malay Mail
Malaysians, beware of unlicensed beauty doctors: Court awards RM800,000 compensation over PJ clinic's botched breast filler injection
Sessions Court awarded RM800,000 in exemplary damages to a woman harmed by unlicensed breast filler injections at an unregistered Petaling Jaya beauty clinic, to deter unqualified doctors and clinics It said Malaysians should check if those giving them beauty treatments are actually doctors and whether they have Health Ministry-issued qualification to carry out aesthetic treatments It was also determined that consent form signed by patients are invalid, if the doctor did not tell the patient that they are not qualified to carry out the procedure KUALA LUMPUR, July 30 — Malaysians should make sure to ask doctors if they have the Health Ministry's licence to carry out aesthetic and beauty treatments on them, the Sessions Court in Kuala Lumpur has said in its RM800,000 decision over a breast filler injection procedure. In this medical negligence case, Sessions Court judge Saifullah Bhatti ordered a doctor who did not have the licence, a Petaling Jaya beauty clinic found to be unlicensed, and the beauty clinic's owner, to pay RM800,000 in exemplary damages to a woman over the injection of fillers into her breasts. In this case, the woman — identified only as R for privacy purposes — had experienced pain and swelling after the breast filler injections in 2020. This resulted in her later visiting multiple other doctors, undergoing two MRI scans, and undergoing three surgeries in 2021 and 2024 to remove the fillers, as well as other treatments. With the Sessions Court able to handle cases involving a maximum RM1 million amount, judge Saifullah yesterday said the compensation amount of RM800,000 would send a strong message to doctors in Malaysia to get their qualifications and only do medical procedures that are covered by their licences. The Sessions Court noted that exemplary damages are meant to raise awareness to the public on the issues in a case, and to make an example out of those being sued and to deter them from repeating the same actions they were sued for. The Sessions Court noted that the High Court had in another case in November 2024 awarded RM100,000 in exemplary damages to deter 'beauty clinics which have mushroomed nationwide offering beauty aesthetics surgeries' from performing procedures that are not covered in their licences. The Sessions Court said there is increasingly alarming news of more and more doctors being caught for performing procedures without licence: 'In many cases around the world and not just in Malaysia, patients are sometimes left to die bleeding on the operating table.' Even with the High Court having awarded RM100,000 in the 2024 case, there continues to be news of such rampant doctors, and the Sessions Court judge noted that the RM100,000 sum has not been potent enough to deter such doctors. In Malaysia, the Health Ministry's guidelines require doctors to get the ministry's 'Letter of Credentialling and Privileging' (LCP) or qualification before they can carry out aesthetic procedures — including breast filler injections — on patients. In R's case, the Sessions Court judge said the RM800,000 exemplary damages award was necessary to let Malaysians know they should check on doctors carrying out beauty treatments on them. While anyone can be blamed for not asking basic questions 'such as whether the person treating them is in the first place a doctor', the Sessions Court judge said it is harder to expect the public to know that the doctor must also have an LCP to carry out the aesthetic procedure on them. 'As such, in deciding this case, and in granting exemplary damages, it is hoped that the general public is more aware of this issue and they should now be on notice to take all necessary precautions when consulting doctors for aesthetic procedures including asking all the right questions regarding your doctors qualifications – specifically whether they have the LCP,' the judge said in a 66-page judgment released yesterday. The judge said the RM800,000 sum was justified as the case involves 'public health and safety and holding recalcitrant doctors accountable to medical law, regulations and ethics', and that it was a fair amount that should remind all doctors to get their qualifications and to stay within the limits of their certifications and their LCP. In arriving at the RM800,000 figure, the judge had noted the facts where the doctor did not have an LCP; and that the doctor had failed the examination for the LCP but her 'niat tertunda' or her intention to resit for the examination was postponed because of the movement control orders during the Covid-19 pandemic. The judge also noted that the doctor had taken her lack of the LCP more lightly than she should have as she tried to cite other inapplicable course certificates to insist she was qualified; and that the doctor had misrepresented to R that she would be injected with 100 per cent pure hyaluronic acid fillers but instead injected her with a filler which was lab-tested to be 'primarily composed of silicone'. The judge said the doctor had gone on to perform a drainage procedure on R without an LCP; and that the aesthetic centre and its owner had allowed the doctor to carry out those two procedures on R without an LCP; and that there was no proof that the aesthetic centre and its owner had Health Ministry-required licence to carry out the business. Ultimately, the Sessions Court awarded the woman R with compensation totalling RM919,009.60 in the form of RM800,000 exemplary damages, RM85,000 in general damages for her pain and suffering; and RM34,009.60 in special damages; and also awarded RM25,000 in costs to her. What R's lawsuit was about and what the court decided In her lawsuit filed in April 2023 at the Sessions Court in Kuala Lumpur, the patient R had sued Dr S, the aesthetic centre's owner SHA, and the aesthetic centre's company F to claim for compensation. R's lawsuit claimed that Dr S was negligent by carrying out an aesthetic medical procedure without proper accreditation or licensing and failing to comply with the accepted standard of care by injecting the wrong filler into R's breasts. R claimed that the other two sued were negligent by appointing an unlicensed medical practitioner to perform the procedure and for failing to meet the appropriate standard of care that was expected of them as a medical facility. The Sessions Court found Dr S to be negligent as she performed the procedure on R without the LCP accreditation, also noting that Dr S had failed to disclose to R that she was not legally qualified to perform the procedure. Dr S was also found liable, as R would not have suffered the injuries if she had not used a filler that was later found to be primarily composed of silicone. While Dr S claimed that R had accepted the risks by signing a consent form before the breast filler procedure, the Sessions Court said the patient could not have consented to what had happened to her as she had consented to a pure HA injection instead of a mainly-silicone injection. 'When a doctor performs a procedure without disclosing the fact they are not qualified (such as what happened in this case), any consent obtained under that present is invalid,' the judge said, having noted that a previous High Court decision had found that such failure would undermine a patient's ability to make informed decisions about their treatment. The Sessions Court also found SHA and F to be negligent, noting that the beauty clinic's claimed Petaling Jaya City Council licence was irrelevant as it would only be a local authority's permit to run a healthcare business and is not a valid Health Ministry-required permit to perform medical aesthetics procedures. The Sessions Court said the man SHA is just as liable as Dr S as they were business partners; and the beauty clinic's company F is a healthcare facility which had not shown any accreditation or licensing required under the Private Healthcare Facilities And Services Act 1998 and that it was not qualified to 'play host to what was essentially an unlicensed and therefore illegal business'. R was represented by lawyers Dayang Roziekah Ussin, Abu Daud Abd Rahim and Nik Amalia Suraya Nik Muhammad; while the three sued were represented by lawyer Fakhrul Azman Abu Hasan.
The Star
2 hours ago
- The Star
Game-changing treatment for advanced prostate cancer
Prostate cancer is the third most common cancer among Malaysian men, with cases rising steadily since 2012. While it trails behind colorectal and lung cancer, it is still a significant concern. What's more worrying is that many cases are detected late. Early-stage prostate cancer is highly treatable, but late-stage cases are far more difficult to manage. What is prostate cancer? The disease begins when cells in the prostate – a small, walnut-sized gland below the bladder – start to grow uncontrollably. In its early stages, prostate cancer often causes no symptoms. But as the tumour grows, it can press against the urethra – the tube that carries urine – leading to changes in urination. Left untreated, the cancer can spread to nearby tissues, lymph nodes, or even the bones, making it more difficult to treat and manage. Yet, many men overlook the early signs. However, symptoms such as difficulty urinating, weak flow, or frequent trips to the bathroom at night may be early warning signs of prostate cancer. Sunway University consultant urologist and urologic oncologist Professor Dr Tan Guan Hee explains that these symptoms often go unnoticed or are mistaken for benign prostate conditions such as benign prostatic hyperplasia. 'Many men assume it's just part of getting older and delay seeing a doctor,' he says. 'Unfortunately, this means prostate cancer is often diagnosed at a later stage, when it's more difficult to treat.' As Malaysia's population continues to age, the number of prostate-related issues is expected to rise in tandem. Despite this, there is a general lack of awareness of the problem, minimal symptoms in early stages, and a cultural reluctance to seek help for intimate health issues. When prostate cancer is detected early, treatment options such as surgery or radiotherapy are often effective and potentially curative. However, late-stage prostate cancer, which may have already spread to bones or lymph nodes (metastasised), requires more advanced interventions. This is where radioligand therapy (RLT) offers new hope. Overcoming stigma One significant and often overlooked challenge in managing prostate cancer is cultural reluctance. Many patients delay seeking care due to embarrassment or denial, particularly Asian men, who may be more reserved about discussing health issues. Doctors often find that families bring in patients who have ignored symptoms for years. Prof Tan says: 'Addressing this cultural barrier requires greater public awareness, normalising conversations around men's health, and encouraging routine screening and early intervention.' Beyond individual awareness, family involvement plays a critical role in detecting early symptoms of prostate cancer and preventing critical outcomes. 'If children notice their father is frequently going to the toilet, they might realise something is amiss and encourage him to seek medical help,' he suggests. Treatment for prostate cancer depends on what stage the tumour is at. — Photos: Canva Precision treatment According to consultant clinical oncologist Dr Nik Muhd Aslan Abdullah, treatment for prostate cancer has come a long way since the 1990s. While surgery, radiotherapy and hormonal therapy remain standard options, recent advances in precision medicine have led to more targeted, effective treatments. Choosing the most appropriate treatment depends on several factors, including: > The stage of the cancer > The patient's age > Personal preferences > Underlying health conditions that may make certain treatments, such as surgery, unsuitable. 'In the past, our precision treatment options were quite limited. 'But today, we are guided by clearer staging and more accurate tools,' he says. Dr Nik outlines the four key stages that influence treatment strategy: > Stage 1: The tumour is confined to the prostate and involves no more than half of the gland. > Stage 2: The tumour remains within the prostate but is more advanced. > Stage 3: The tumour has grown beyond the prostate and may have reached nearby structures such as the seminal vesicles, rectum or bladder. > Stage 4: The cancer has spread to the lymph nodes or distant parts of the body, such as the bones. 'To determine the stage, we typically rely on three approaches: physical examination, blood tests, particularly for prostate-specific antigen (PSA), and imaging. 'Conventional imaging includes computed tomography (CT) scans, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and bone scans,' he explains. However, these methods have their limitations. Dr Nik adds: 'They may miss early tumours or small areas of spread, and while blood tests are helpful, they cannot show the precise location of the cancer.' Sharper detection with PSMA PET-CT A key development is PSMA PET-CT imaging – a powerful diagnostic tool that combines positron emission tomography (PET) with CT to detect prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA), a protein found on most prostate cancer cells. 'About 80% of prostate cancer cells have a protein called PSMA on their surface,' explains Sunway University consultant nuclear medicine physician Associate Prof Dr Tan Teik Hin. 'We use this to both detect and treat cancer. The approach is simple: we treat what we see, and we see what we treat.' PSMA PET-CT works like a GPS for cancer cells. The CT maps the body's structure, while the PET scan lights up areas where PSMA-positive cancer cells are present. It can detect tumours as small as 0.3cm, far smaller than what conventional scans typically reveal. In an April 2020 ProPSMA study published in The Lancet , researchers found that this method was 27% more accurate than traditional imaging, often leading to significant changes in treatment planning. What is radioligand therapy or RLT? Once PSMA-positive cancer cells are identified, patients may be eligible for RLT. This treatment uses a radioactive compound that binds specifically to PSMA on cancer cells, delivering a precise dose of radiation directly to the tumour while sparing surrounding healthy tissue. Assoc Prof Teik Hin says: 'It's like sending a guided missile to destroy only the cancer cells. 'RLT is not entirely new. A similar concept – using radioactive iodine to treat thyroid cancer – has been in use for over 80 years. 'What's new is applying the same principle to prostate cancer using more advanced, highly specific radiotracers.' After treatment, a follow-up scan (SPECT-CT, a hybrid imaging technique that combines Single Photon Emission Computed Tomography and CT) is conducted to confirm that the radioligand successfully reached and treated the target. From left: Assoc Prof Teik Hin, Prof Tan and Dr Nik were the three medical professionals who led the roundtable discussion on RLT. — Handout Fewer side effects One of the greatest advantages of RLT is its specificity. Because the therapy targets only cancerous cells, it causes fewer side effects compared to systemic treatments like chemotherapy or hormonal therapy. Most patients tolerate it well, with mild side effects such as dry mouth, fatigue or nausea. More importantly, studies show that RLT can help delay disease progression, reduce symptoms like pain, and improve quality of life, especially for men with advanced or castration-resistant prostate cancer. While RLT is currently used mainly for patients with stage 4 prostate cancer who no longer respond to other treatments, ongoing clinical trials are exploring its use at earlier stages. PSMA PET-CT is also being studied for its ability to guide biopsies and detect cancer even before a formal diagnosis is made. 'Compared to systemic hormone therapy, which affects the entire body and can cause fatigue and mood changes, RLT offers a more targeted approach with fewer disruptions to daily life. 'We see a marked improvement in quality of life, and patients report less pain, more energy, and better sleep after the therapy,' says Assoc Prof Teik Hin. The treatment is available at government facilities such as the National Cancer Institute (IKN) in Putrajaya and Hospital Kuala Lumpur, as well as at several private hospitals. The cost of RLT varies depending on the hospital, the number of treatment cycles, and individual response to the treatment. As there is no fixed price, patients are encouraged to consult their medical team to discuss affordability and explore available financial support options. The three experts were discussing 'Size Matters in Prostate Cancer: Experts Highlight Advances to Close Critical Gaps in Care,' in a media roundtable held recently at a private hospital in Petaling Jaya, Selangor.
