Attorney General Anand Ramlogan will ask the acting Commissioner of Police to continue investigations into the case of a private nursing home patient who had 20 cocaine pellets removed from his stomach, despite the recent revelation that no charges can be laid against the doctor who failed to report the incident to police, or against anyone else involved. dsdsdsddsSpeaking at yesterday’s weekly government press conference at the Prime Minister’s Office, St Clair, Ramlogan added: “I find it an entirely unsatisfactory and unacceptable state of affairs that such an event could have occurred. “So I would ask the Commissioner of Police to continue the investigations with the advice they had received from the Director of Public Prosecutions but not allow T&T to become a laughing stock because that is exactly the kind of absurdity it would result in.”
The patient, 34, from Arouca reportedly swallowed the cocaine pellets in a bid to smuggle the narcotic and was taken for treatment at the hospital after experiencing stomach pains.
The drugs were removed during surgery and the man was later transferred to the Mt Hope Medical Complex. Acting Police Commissioner Stephen Williams said on Wednesday the matter had been investigated thoroughly and the decision against laying charges was made on the advice of deputy Director of Public Prosecutions Kathy Ann Waterman-Latchoo. Williams said there was no evidence which could be used to pursue prosecution against surgeon or patient.
But Ramlogan said yesterday if a doctor used the doctor-patient confidentiality provision as a shield for a criminal situation, that must be a cause for concern not just for citizens, but also for the law. Ramlogan said his understanding of the law was that doctors were obliged to repfort criminal offences and that was well understood, whether it was a case of a child rape incident or the physical abuse of a child or whether cocaine was removed from someone’s stomach. In such situations, professional responsibility involved informing the police and retaining possession of the foreign substance/particles/bags of whatever was removed, for due process to take its course, he said.
He asked: “There are many unanswered questions in this matter, starting with the patient entering the nursing home. What did they do when they removed the foreign substance? What was the nature of the patient’s complaint; was there full and frank disclosure made by the patient to the doctor on the true, genuine purpose of what they were seeking medical attention for, etc.
“And when it was removed and there was clear grounds to suspect there was in fact, illegal drugs digested with the intention to be expelled and sold as part of drug trafficking, if so, then surely the doctor and the nursing home should have been red-flagging this matter.”
Ramlogan said the staff should have been on high alert to notify the police so the patient could immediately be arrested or watched, not allowed to walk out of the nursing home.
“Instead,” he added, “it would seem here, there was a complete abdication of responsibility and professional responsibility to duty and responsibility in accordance with the law, and I am gravely concerned and extremely disturbed at what occurred. And we are now being told no one can be held responsible, far less culpable as a matter of law.”
He said while he respected the DPP’s advice, it was advice which must be contextualised.
He noted: “It is advice based on evidence the investigations unearthed and put to the DPP’s office but quite separate and apart from that, one would have expected that the Medical Board would have by now treated this matter with the urgency it clearly requires and steps to ascertain if there was misconduct in accordance with the law, something that needs to be investigated as matter of urgency.”
Ramlogan stressed: “This matter sets a most dangerous precedent for a country as it (ingestion) is a known medium and method of transporting drugs—for people to ingest it, whether they put in a condom and dip it in honey and swallow it, or use it as a suppository.
Ramlogan said he could not accept that concern about reprisals, which may have occurred after Dana Seetahal’s May murder, was ample justification for what happened in the situation. He said that sort of excuse would result in collapse of law and order and disintegration of society.