Three doctors indicted by the Medical and Dental Practitioners Investigation Panel over the death of the son of Chimamanda Adichie have faulted the investigative process, alleging lack of fair hearing and misapplication of provisions of the Code of Medical Ethics.
The doctors, who spoke to Saturday PUNCH on condition of anonymity for fear of further victimisation, alleged that the panel had a preconceived plan to sanction them unjustly.
They demanded that the indictment be immediately set aside and that a public apology be issued for what they described as irreparable damage to their reputations.
The panel, set up by the Medical and Dental Council of Nigeria, announced the suspension of the medical director of Euracare Multi Specialist Hospital, Dr Tunde Majekodunmi; the hospital’s anesthesiologist, Dr Titus Ogundare; and the chief medical officer at Atlantis Pediatric Hospital, Dr Atinuke Uwajeh.
The panel said the trio would remain barred from practising medicine in Nigeria until their cases are determined by the Medical and Dental Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal.
It also found a prima facie case of professional misconduct against 10 other doctors who had contact with the patient, while eight doctors were cleared.
The decisions followed complaints against 21 doctors and were reached after the panel reviewed counter affidavits and oral depositions during its 25th session in Abuja on February 17 and 18.
Adichie’s 21-month-old son, Nkanu Esege, died on January 7, after a brief illness.
Recounting the incident earlier, Adichie alleged medical negligence. She said her son was taken to Euracare Hospital in Lagos for an MRI scan and insertion of a central line after what initially appeared to be a common cold turned into what she described as a serious infection.
During the procedure, the child was sedated but reportedly not properly monitored after receiving propofol, leading to complications including loss of responsiveness, seizures and cardiac arrest.
But one of the doctors indicted by the panel said the decision was based on a wrong application of Rule 49(c) of the Code of Medical Ethics.
“They said I violated Rule 49(c), which was a wrong application of the rule. The rule allows medical practitioners to use their professional skills during their free time, provided it does not clash with official duties.
“For this patient, it was on a Saturday, and I was not at work. The patient was not my private patient. Another doctor owned the patient, and I only went there to give an expert opinion.”
He also alleged that the investigative process denied the doctors the opportunity to question the complainant.
“At the panel, the complainant was absent, but her legal counsel was present and allowed to cross examine us. We were not given the opportunity to cross examine the complainant or her representatives. The cross examination was one sided.”
Another doctor said the questioning by the panel was aggressive and that the respondents were treated as if they were already guilty.
“The questioning was aggressive, and we were treated as if we were guilty even before the panel concluded its work.”
One of the doctors warned that accusing several doctors of misconduct in the management of one patient could damage public confidence in the health system.
“If 10 doctors are all accused of misconduct in managing a single patient, what message does that send about our hospitals?”
Another doctor accused the panel of bias and said the practitioner who carried out the lumbar puncture on the child was not among those indicted.
“The person who performed the procedure that finally led to the death of that child, the lumbar puncture, was not even among the 10 doctors who were indicted.
“It was after the lumbar puncture that the child developed cardiac arrest and never recovered.”
She added, “I think the panel had already decided what it would do even before inviting us. The decision was to make Nigerians feel that they were working, not necessarily to indict those who actually did wrong.”
The Medical and Dental Council of Nigeria said the suspensions are interim measures pending the determination of the case by the Medical and Dental Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal.
