The Guyana Medical Council is looking into police surgeon Dr Mahendra Chand’s treatment of a torture victim, according to Council Presi-dent Dr Galton Roberts.
Stabroek News approached Dr Roberts at his Queenstown clinic for comment on the issue but was told through an assistant that the Council was “looking into the matter” and he could not comment on the case.
Dr Chand’s treatment of the teen boy, who is alleged to have been tortured by policemen at the Leonora Police Station, has been severely criticised by the Guyana Human Rights Association (GHRA), which has indicated that it would be sending a letter to the Council about the surgeon’s actions. In a statement last week, the GHRA accused Chand of ignoring the abuse of the boy and called for him to be relieved of duties in the police force and prison service.
The doctor is, however, defending his actions, saying he did nothing wrong, while requesting that the GHRA desist from associating him with torture. “I am not that kind of person, nor am I not that kind of doctor,” he wrote in a letter published in the daily newspapers over the weekend.
A senior medical practitioner, who spoke with Stabroek News on condition of anonymity, explained that when treating a patient, first and foremost the doctor must establish the person’s identity. The doctor noted that in the case of the torture victim, Dr Chand could not have done so since he had admitted the patient had a bag over his head. “The doctor must see the patient in his entirety,” the practitioner said.
Further, the practitioner added that communication between the doctor and the patient is also important and noted that Chand also admitted that this was not done since he did not speak directly to the child, whose mouth was covered with the bag. Instead, he communicated wit the policemen who accompanied the child at the time. “As a doctor you must talk to the patient, find out what is the problem, find out if there is any other complaint and you must establish what is the cause of his injury, by what means it came… communication is very, very important,” the practitioner emphasised. The doctor explained that while there is no code of ethics that the council works with, once the doctor is a trained professional, he should know how to conduct himself. Failing to do so, would see complaints to the Council, which could result in the doctor being struck off the list of doctors licensed to practice medicine.
Further, the practitioner added that if Chand had requested the police to remove the bag from the child’s head and they did not comply, then he should have refused to see the patient. “Most people would not have seen a patient with a bag over his head,” he said.
It was pointed out to the practitioner that Chand had indicated that while the bag was over the patient’s head, there was no string to tighten it around the neck. But the practitioner said what the doctor had done by giving such a response was “pull the string around his neck and choke himself with that response.”
Chand in his letter had dismissed the GHRA’s charges as “opinions” and questioned its authority to judge him.
The GHRA had contended that Chand’s failure to act constituted a dereliction of duty and could be considered passive complicity with torture. In this context, the GHRA has called on the Council to investigate whether his “gross breach of medical ethics” and “gross incompetence” displayed in the incident warrant serious disciplinary action.
In his letter, Chand said the GHRA never sought his professional opinion on the patient whom he saw at the Vreed-en-Hoop Police Station on October 29, 2009. He said the human rights group “mischievously resorted to capricious, spurious and slanderous allegations which I suspect were crafted to satisfy some sordid or malicious intent.”
He related that on the day he saw the patient, he was called by the police administration to see a patient at 6 pm, which he noted was a time “very much outside my normal working hours. I readily agreed to go and see the patient. I would like to ask the GHRA whether acting beyond the call of duty is an act of callous indifference,” he added.
He said the injured area was exposed and that was solely his concern and focus. “On examining the area I concluded that the patient was suffering from 1st degree (superficial) burns of the genital area, upper thighs and lower buttocks (5-9%). I did not see any other ‘areas of brutality’ as alleged by the GHRA, nor did I see any signs of dehydration as alleged by the GHRA. I did mention verbally that the patient should have been carried to the hospital. Again I ask the GHRA whether this is callous indifference. I had a stamped prescription which I had walked with in anticipation of any medication that needed to be prescribed and I did prescribe antibiotics/analgesics and an antiseptic cream. This fact was misleadingly left out of the article based on a release from the GHRA. Again I ask whether this is callous indifference or complicity to torture,” the doctor said in his letter.
Chand also said that he never indicated that the patient was okay; rather, given circumstances where no stationery was available and in a non-clinical setting “I did the best I could and acted with a clear conscience.”
He said he left the police station with the expectation that the patient would have been carried to a hospital as soon as possible. He added that he has been practising medicine in the Guyana Police Force for the past 12 years and always treated patients presented to him with care, sensitivity and concern, whether they are ranks from the force or detainees from the lock-ups or prisoners.
The teen, a suspect in the murder of former Region Three Vice-Chairman Ramenauth Bisram, has been released from the Georgetown Public Hospital and is now in the custody of his parents. While two policemen have been charged with wounding two other prisoners who were held along with the teen, no charges have been filed in connection with the child’s injuries.