|
Council to Probe Shaik Parole Doctors |
| Publication |
The Times |
| Date | 2009-03-09 |
| Reporter | Sapa |
|
Web Link |
The Health Professions Council of SA (HPCSA) said it will investigate three
doctors who allegedly approved convicted fraudster Schabir Shaik’s release on
medical parole.
HPCSA spokeswoman Bertha Peters-Scheepers today said they had received a
complaint from the Democratic Alliance and would immediately start the
investigation.
James Selfe, DA spokesman on correctional services, said the decision to release
Shaik was made on the advice of the three doctors.
He said the HPCSA should determine whether the doctors acted in compliance with
the rules.
"In terms of the procedure followed by parole boards, the medical practitioner(s)
must state both that the illness is terminal,
and that the offender is in the final phase of
that terminal disease or condition... in other words an assessment has to
be made of life expectancy of the
offender," Selfe said in a statement.
Shaik was granted medical parole after serving two years and four months of a 15
year sentence.
He had been found guilty on two counts of corruption and one of fraud, which,
among other things, related to an alleged bribe he negotiated between African
National Congress president Jacob Zuma and a French arms company.
Selfe said the controversy around Shaik’s release on medical parole had been
exacerbated by Shaik’s close ties with Zuma as well as the statement by Zuma
that he would consider pardoning Shaik if it was legally possible [only days
before Shaik’s release on medical parole].
Another controversy, he said, was a statement by Professor DP Naidoo, the head
of cardiology at Inkosi Albert Luthuli hospital, that he had "personally"
discharged Shaik from hospital in November last year because he considered him
well enough to return to prison.
Selfe said the ethical and professional rules of the HPCSA stipulated that
"a practitioner shall not permit himself or
herself to be exploited in any manner" *1.
He said should it emerge that the three doctors involved in approving Shaik’s
release had been influenced by any individuals to reach a decision based on
non-medical criteria, this might constitute
exploitation in terms of the rules *2.
Related Content
With acknowledgements to Sapa and The Times.