Dr Chand’s treatment of torture victim leaves a lot to be desired

Though I hold no brief for the Guyana Human Rights Association (GHRA), Dr Mahendra Chand’s letter published in the Stabroek News yesterday leaves me utterly dismayed and concerned.

I wonder if Dr Chand, who took the time to pen a response of almost 1,000 words to the GHRA’s criticisms of his actions, might also take the time to tell us what kind of medicine he practises.

How on earth can a medical practitioner, moreso a “Government Medical Officer designated as the Police Surgeon in the Guyana Police Force” see a patient whose face and head are obscured from view? Was Dr Chand examining a piece of meat or a human being?

A section of the Hippocratic Oath says: “Whatever in connection with my professional practice or not in connection with it I may see or hear in the lives of my patients which ought not be spoken abroad, I will not divulge, reckoning that all such should be kept secret.” Why was there need then for the police to keep the patient’s identity secret from the doctor?

Dr Chand’s letter says: “My job is to determine the fitness of recruits, to take care of the general health of the staff of the Guyana Police Force, the fire service and the prison service. I also see prisoners in the Georgetown prison and lock-up detainees whenever they are presented to me.” How did Dr Chand know for sure that he was seeing a prisoner? Suppose the patient was a policeman, fireman or prison officer? Would the doctor consider that he had done his duty of taking care of the officer’s general health?

One would have imagined that the doctor’s professional instincts would have forced him to ensure at the very least that he was not treating a minor. Because from a purely layman’s point of view, unless the doctor saw this patient in a semi-dark or dark setting, without even seeing the face, things like muscle tone would have told the doctor that he was looking at the body of a young person. And unless Dr Chand habitually sees patients whose heads are “covered with a bag,” alarm bells should have gone off in his head and some sort of report or documentation should have been sent to his bosses in the hierarchy of the Guyana Police Force and Ministry of Home Affairs.

Further, the doctor says in his letter, “I did not see any other ‘areas of brutality’ as alleged by the GHRA, nor did I see any signs of dehydration as alleged by the GHRA.” How would Dr Chand have seen other injuries or signs of dehydration when by his own admission he did not examine the patient properly?

I am no doctor but I have been to enough of them to know that when a patient is seen by a competent medical practitioner, s/he checks that patient’s vital signs regardless of what complaint the patient claims to have. This includes a visual assessment of the patient’s general condition which involves looking at the patient’s face and into his/her eyes, and a check of the patient’s pulse and blood pressure at the very minimum.

I also wonder how it is that Dr Chand prescribed antibiotics/analgesics and other medication without attempting to enquire from the patient whether he is allergic to any of those drugs.

If the doctor’s actions at the Vreed-en-Hoop Police Station on October 29 had any bearing on the fact that he was required to journey “about ten kilometers away from my home at 6 pm, a time very much outside my normal working hours,” then he may want to consider if he is in the right profession.

I am very afraid, however, that this is Dr Chand’s usual bedside manner and if it is not callous indifference, then it leaves a lot to be desired.

Yours faithfully,
(Name and address provided)