In 2015 the minister of health found the Health Professions
Council (HPCSA) is “in a state of dysfunction”.
The Special Investigations Unit (SIU) is investigating staff who allegedly took bribes for medical registrations and exam passes. Whistleblowers
reported it.
Dr Wouter Basson won related cases against the HPCSA’s
disciplinary committees in the Gauteng High Court and Supreme Court of Appeal
for bias and conflict of interest. Two members
of the committee of the inquiry into complaints about his apartheid-era work
were among those who had brought charges against him for.
Recently I laid charges against the HPCSA and members of its
Third Preliminary Committee of Inquiry.
A member of the committee had a prior and ongoing
business relationship with one of the respondents at the
time the case was heard in November and May 2019. That was a significant factor in the miscarriage
of justice (see in this blog). The
committee was biased in favour of the respondents. Their conduct is offenses
under the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act of 2004.
In an interview on eNCA regarding the bribery allegations
Billa said the council is “a credible organisation” (sic). It’s unknown why he
wasn’t aware of the problem if he and the body are as credible as he claims.
However, as with many state bodies, corruption in the HPCSA appears systemic. The anti-corruption act states public officers in management
positions who’re aware of corrupt activities must report it to the police. But
it’s clear from the above examples the HPCSA’s executive, especially CEO Dr
Raymond Billa and after I wrote to him about my concerns, are not doing so. By extension, they’re also liable.
The HPCSA is politically correct too, pursuing a political
agenda with trumped-up charges against people like Prof. Tim Noakes despite his
questionable, but not improper, proselytising the Banting Diet and Nelson
Mandela’s former personal physician who wrote a memoir (he says Mandela’s
daughter gave him permission) while letting doctors who commit serious breaches
of ethics or medical negligence go unpunished.
The HPCSA is presently holding an inquiry
against Dr Jacques de Vos for alleged unprofessional conduct and disrespecting
a patient’s choice and autonomy who sought an abortion. (His lawyer argued the
HPCSA has not adhered to its own regulations regarding De Vos.)
Putting aside the contested facts of the case, health
professionals are legally bound to inform patients of available options and
risks and benefits of each treatment and procedure, including abortions. This
is called “informed consent”, which is fundamental principle of medicine.
In July 2017 Groote Schuur Hospital doctors removed my unconscious
but stable mother’s breathing tube. She died of respiratory arrest that caused
heart failure. She likely died in pain.
They neither informed us nor sought consent for that or any procedure they
performed that day.
The HPCSA’s inquiry committee dismissed our complaints including
specifically the doctors’ failure to inform us, obtain our consent and
disregarding our wishes. Without any evidence except the doctors’ including
head of department Nicol’s lies and fabrications, they say we were “adequately”
informed, which anyway does not meet the informed consent standard.
But paradoxically, they’re prosecuting De Vos for doing what
the doctors in my mother’s case failed to do: obeying the law. Alternatively,
they should dismiss the charges against him and ought to have prosecuted my
mother’s doctors for the offenses they’re attributing to him: unprofessional conduct and disrespecting a patient’s choice
and autonomy.
Or if the allegations are true, how can my mother’s doctors
have behaved responsibly when the ethical circumstances are worse than De Vos’ in that they knew it might
have caused her death?
If it sounds confusing and contradictory, it is. Their
rationale is not based on reason and law, but agendas and personal interests. And an important factor in our case is the
relationship the member has with a respondent.
This is corruption as defined in the anti-corruption act. And with the corrupt, the law is a nebulous,
malleable concept open to interpretation based on expedience and opportunity.
It’s plainly evident the HPCSA is corrupt and dysfunctional.
Not all staffs, though, e.g. those who reported the bribery, but arguably, as
with all state bodies, the culture of corruption is systemic there and has
affected the executive and disciplinary committees too.
The National Prosecutions Authority has still not told us
their intention about the criminal complaint I laid in August. If despite the
factual and circumstantial evidence they and related agencies refuse to act on
our complaint, then it’s proof it’s as paralysed as it ever was prior the new
NDPP Shamila Batohi.
The list of medical committee members can be found here.
Comments
Post a Comment