Special Hearings — Health Sector Hearings — 1997-06-17

MS GOBODO-MADIKIZELA: Thank you Chairperson.  Frances Ames, when she spoke earlier evoked the work of Hannah Ahrends and the theory of obedience to authority to explain the mentality of the time and for us to try and understand what was happening at the time.  But you added another factor, another important factor which is the creation of a particular kind of culture, or as you called it a society that was steeped in propaganda.  And Solly Ratemane I think also added another factor which is fear.
 Now looking at all these conditions, the ordinariness of human beings in the sense that anyone can commit atrocious acts or anyone can be part of these acts as Frances Ames said, and your proposal that the environment contributes to that, is it possible that in fact the dragging of feet as far as decisions in the legal case was concerned, was motivated purely by apartheid propaganda, apartheid ideology which is essentially racist, is it possible?  
 That the difficulty to reach a decision in respect of those doctors was really a result of the perception of Steve Biko as a Black person in apartheid society, is it possible that you were motivated by those kind of factors?

LEN BECKER: Firstly if I think of the process that the Council has to go through in order to arrive at an inquiry I do not think the Council dragged its feet.  What brought about this delay was the court case which came in-between on behalf of Drs Lang and Tucker.
 The second part of the question of course is very difficult because I can't say what happened in people's minds when they took a vote on a certain matter, and whether they were influenced in other manners which we don't know about.  
 But my experience in Council has always been that people have been objective and have never thought of a patient or a doctor as either Black or White.  I have never come across that, and I can say that with all sincerity.  All the time that I've been on the Council, which is since 1980 cases were discussed.   It was a case of Mrs so-and-so against Dr so-and-so, and there was never race as part of that thing.

MS GOBODO-MADIKIZELA: During the time you were in the Council what was the racial composition of your Council?

LEN BECKER: I can't recall exactly, maybe Mr Prinsloo can.

NICO PRINSLOO: Yes I don't have the exact numbers but it was overwhelmingly a White Council and a male Council.

MS GOBODO-MADIKIZELA: One other question.  We heard this morning Sean, who was a medic in the army, he presented to us what seems to be a total violation of medical ethics at the macro level in the way in which they were allowed to handle patients in a hospital.  And secondly, at a micro level he told us how when they needed psychiatric attention they were told by qualified psychiatrists that there was nothing wrong with them.  What would your position be if you established that in fact what Sean told us is true, as a professional body?

NICO PRINSLOO: I think Dr Randera asked that question earlier.  If evidence to that effect came to our notice then this would go the normal route of Council, inquiries, and the necessary steps would be taken against the practitioner if that was proved to be correct.

MS GOBODO-MADIKIZELA: Thank you Madam Chair.  Towards the end of your presentation Mr Prinsloo you expressed a wish that you hope your presentation will promote trust between health bodies and the public, I mean just looking at the background which we have in our mind and hopefully the public, which has come from like specifically Leslie and Miss Ncanywa's presentation, Dr Leslie London, which addressed systematic abuse in particular, which aspects really of your presentation, which if people are listening out there would really begin to trust the health professionals, because that was your wish?

NICO PRINSLOO: Yes, I think essentially it was a question that the Council, in its presentation, did not come here to defend the SAMDC.  We tried objectively to state where the Council did things and also stated the things where the Council neglected to take action, and we hope that that at least would form the starting point or the basis of an openness on behalf of the Interim Council.  And that is the other point of course, it is a transformed Council.  It is no longer the SAMDC.  In the light of the different aspects mentioned as to how the Council will function and on the basis of this statement of what it did and didn't do, we trust that that could form the basis of greater trust in the Council or its successors.

MS GOBODO-MADIKIZELA: Again just to assist you in this trust issue, what is it in the new structure which you think, if you had to sell it, people would really begin to trust?   Because I am sure just to say - virtually everything is new in this country today, so what is it in the new name which in your own mind will counteract all what we have heard about systematic abuse and stuff like that?

NICO PRINSLOO: Yes, the Interim Council and also the Council proposed, which is now the subject of legislation before Parliament, makes provision for a totally different composition of Council.  As one example I have mentioned the question of community representatives.  The input or the presence of those members on Council will no doubt ensure that decisions taken by the Council are also in the interest of the public, and that is of course the main objective of the Council is the interest of the public.
 So I think it's a question of the structure of the Council, the composition and also, as was mentioned, the question of the framework within which the Council will function in terms of greater accountability.

LEN BECKER: I think if I may add to that, one must realise that the medical profession and the allied professions is an all self-regulatory profession, that's why the Council is there, because the Council represents them and regulates their activities.  And what the Council does and how the Council acts depends largely on their perceptions of what happens there.  So if the medical profession is alert and the medical profession is active in guarding against abuses then the Council would know about it and the Council would be in a position to act against it.

MS GOBODO-MADIKIZELA: Thank you.

ADV POTGIETER: Dr Becker, an issue that was raised by Dr Randera in regard to the way in which the Biko matter had unfolded within the Council, you responded by saying that what happened was not really unusual, it is tantamount to what often happens in courts where a higher court differs from a view that was taken by a lower court.  Is that really the only explanation for how this unfortunate matter had unfolded within the Council?

LEN BECKER: As I said earlier, I said the Committee of Preliminary Inquiry had certain information at its disposal and they came to a certain conclusion. Subsequent to that the Council got itself involved in the legal requirements of rescinding a decision where new evidence was required which Council could not do.  When eventually it came before the final Committee that Committee took its own decision on whether these people were guilty or not guilty, without being influenced by what happened at the other Committee.  And that just drew the parallel, this is something which happens ...(intervention)