Shaik doctors acted professionally - HPCSA

[HIV Ethics&Policy]

FYI

Shaik doctors acted professionally - HPCSA

April 20 2009 at 01:39PM

By Angela Quintal There was nothing untoward, unethical or unprofessional in the conduct of any of the doctors involved in the care in jail of Schabir Shaik, or in the reports which led to his medical parole. This was the finding on Monday of the Health Professions Council of South Africa, announcing there was no evidence to suggest that any of his doctors misstated, misrepresented or falsified his condition. Nor were they "unduly influenced" in any way, or influenced by Shaik's relationship with ANC President Jacob Zuma, HPCSA registrar Advocate Boyce Mkhize said on Monday. This was after a HPCSA investigation by its committee of a preliminary inquiry into whether any of the doctors involved acted unethically or improperly and should face charges of misconduct.

The HPCSA said the clinical reports, as well as the medical reports it had access to, revealed a "gravely serious medical condition of Mr Shaik".

The council's Committee of Preliminary Inquiry - consisting of independent medical experts - was satisfied that the medical reports by various doctors were not exaggerated, misrepresented or falsified.

The council said that while the initial complaint by the DA focused on three doctors, the council found that several medical practitioners had in fact treated Shaik during his incarceration.

The Daily News established last month after a two-week investigation that at least 14 medical practitioners had treated or diagnosed Shaik since he was jailed for corruption and fraud in November 2006.

Durban psychiatrist, Professor A E Gangat, cardiologist Dr Sajidah Khan and correctional services practitioner Dr Ngenisile Mbanjwa, were the last to interact with the patient.

The parole board met Mbanjwa and Gangat - who had previously stated that Shaik was suicidal - on February 26, and Khan on March 1.

In its statement, in which it did not name the practitioners involved, the HPCSA said:

There was no evidence to suggest that any of the practitioners involved in Shaik's treatment or compilation of medical reports were unduly influenced in any manner; There was also no evidence that any of the practitioners misstated or misrepresented or falsified or exaggerated Shaik's medical condition in order to influence or procure an inappropriate release on medical grounds; None of the reports by the practitioners involved was as a result of a political consideration or relationship or status of Mr Shaik to the president of the ANC, Mr Jacob Zuma; and, To the contrary, the reports were a true reflection of pure clinical observations and records which were not susceptible to manipulation or misstatement. The HPCSA said that in consulting the Department of Correctional Services, it was clear that the parole board could not and did not act on the basis of a single medical report. "We were advised that Mr Shaik's medical parole came before the attention of the Parole Board around November 2008 and the Parole Board deferred its decision and recommended that the matter be reconsidered around March 2009. "We were further advised that the Parole Board took this decision in order to adopt a much more cautious approach in order to satisfy itself that the condition of Mr Shaik indeed warranted the granting of medical parole. "Clearly, this is a decision that could not have been based on one medical report." The HPCSA said it had access not only to the medical reports compiled by a number of doctors on Shaik's condition, but also his voluminous clinical records obtained from Inkosi Albert Luthuli hospital. "We have established that all the medical reports compiled by all practitioners involved in the Shaik matter were consistent with one another in that the diagnosis and prognosis of Mr Shaik was similar. "We have further established that Mr Shaik's condition and its gravity was confirmed by an independent specialist outside of KwaZulu-Natal, based in the University of Cape Town, which rules out the possibility that there may have been some collusion between the doctors." The HPCSA had also established that the medical reports compiled were consistent with the clinical records which were computer generated based on the medical condition of the patient. The HPCSA said it was important to emphasise that the doctors involved in report writing did not have any decision making powers to grant medical parole. This article was originally published on page 3 of Daily News on April 20, 2009