Dear Editor,
I refer to the recent case where a medical doctor practising in Guyana’s largest and busiest hospital had been earlier convicted of sexually abusing a child. According to what has been reported in the media, (and I stand corrected if the information is misrepresented) the doctor’s licence to practise was revoked in the US following his conviction as a sex offender in that country.
Firstly, this man must have been aware that an act of this nature would pose a serious threat to the practice of his profession. The huge issue of trust comes into play, since in many instances, depending on the severity of the illness, persons could not care less what measures have to be taken, just as long as they feel better and their symptoms are alleviated. One of the doctor’s arguments is that the act of abuse of which he was convicted of did not take place at work. He further stated that the act was committed on a child and that his patients are adults. Is he therefore saying that he can only be trusted among adults but not children? If my memory serves me correctly, isn’t this the same doctor who was instrumental in a recent successful surgical delivery? The last time I checked, ‘a baby’ was still considered a child at its most vulnerable and innocent stage.
However, the part of this story that peeves me is the fact that Dr Madan Rambarran admitted that he was fully aware of the doctor’s history. Furthermore, he claims that the Medical Council was also aware of this before the doctor was employed. Did these people realize that this man had already breached the medical code of conduct? Why are we so reactive in this place? Why do we see danger and still flirt with it? I thought that by now the Neesa Gopaul case would have caused professionals across the length and breadth of this nation to wake up and stop treating their profession in a careless manner.
Our leaders and persons in authority need to make decisions with the citizenry’s best interest at heart. Recently, employees at the Georgetown Public Hospital have been under immense scrutiny and blamed for the deaths of patients as a consequence of their negligence. Can we hear anything worse of this institution? Do we want to find out?
I know persons will pose the argument that this country is already short of medical personnel; however, my contention is that Dr Vishwamintra Persaud should have never been granted the opportunity to practise here since the country which granted him a licence found just reason to revoke it.
Yours faithfully,
Trudy Abrahams
