Apartheid Corrupted The Medical Profession..

Cape Town — The dis­crim­i­na­to­ry prac­tices of the apartheid era had a neg­a­tive impact on the med­ical edu­ca­tion of

Apartheid dirty-tricks head Dr Wouter Basson at hearings held by the Health Professions Council of South Africa into his conduct. Basson oversaw the manufacture of biological weapons such as lethal bacteria to kill only black people. File picture: Oupa Mokoena
Apartheid dirty-tricks head Dr Wouter Basson at hear­ings held by the Health Professions Council of South Africa into his con­duct. Basson over­saw the man­u­fac­ture of bio­log­i­cal weapons such as lethal bac­te­ria to kill only black peo­ple. File pic­ture: Oupa Mokoena

black stu­dents, the care of black patients in pri­vate as well as pub­lic insti­tu­tions, and the careers of black med­ical doc­tors. Medical stu­dent train­ing pro­grammes at most uni­ver­si­ties ensured that white patients were not exam­ined by black med­ical stu­dents either in life or after death. Post-mortems on white patients were con­duct­ed in the pres­ence of white stu­dents only; stu­dents of colour were per­mit­ted to view the organs only after they were removed from the corpse.

Public and pri­vate hos­pi­tals reflect­ed the mores of apartheid South Africa. Ambulance ser­vices were seg­re­gat­ed, and even in emer­gen­cies a des­ig­nat­ed “white ambu­lance” could not treat and trans­port crit­i­cal­ly ill or injured patients of colour. Public hos­pi­tals had sep­a­rate wings for white and black patients and med­ical staff. Many pri­vate prac­tices had sep­a­rate entrances and wait­ing rooms for patients with med­ical insur­ance and those pay­ing cash, effec­tive­ly seg­re­gat­ing white and black. Doctors treat­ing polit­i­cal pris­on­ers faced dual loy­al­ties on a reg­u­lar basis. Some, like Dr Wendy Orr, resist­ed the gross human rights vio­la­tions, while many were com­plic­it. In par­tic­u­lar, the abhor­rent treat­ment of med­ical stu­dent and polit­i­cal activist Steve Biko received inter­na­tion­al attention.

The con­duct of dis­trict sur­geon Dr Ivor Lang and chief dis­trict sur­geon Dr Benjamin Tucker in the Biko affair was inde­fen­si­ble. They failed to exam­ine Biko ade­quate­ly, did not attempt to elic­it even a basic his­to­ry from him, and did not pro­vide ade­quate care or treat­ment. Instead, they acqui­esced to the instruc­tions of the secu­ri­ty police, neglect­ing to place the best inter­ests of their patient above all oth­er con­sid­er­a­tions. This unpro­fes­sion­al con­duct may be explained by the con­flict of the doc­tors caught in a clas­si­cal “dual-loy­al­ty” sit­u­a­tion — one in which their duty to their patient, Biko, con­flict­ed with their (per­ceived) duty to the state. In fact, Tucker sub­se­quent­ly admit­ted: “I had become too close­ly iden­ti­fied with the inter­est of the organs of the state, espe­cial­ly the police force, with which I dealt prac­ti­cal­ly on a dai­ly basis… I have come to realise that a med­ical practitioner’s pri­ma­ry con­sid­er­a­tion is the well-being of his patient.”

GR McLean and Trefor Jenkins make the point that the Biko case is an exam­ple of a dif­fi­cult ethics case not because it is dif­fi­cult to know what the moral­ly cor­rect course of action is, but “because it is hard to do what one ought to do”. The duty of the doc­tors involved in Biko’s case was clear, but per­form­ing that duty was dif­fi­cult. They had become so accus­tomed to work­ing with the secu­ri­ty police and regard­ing the detainees as dan­ger­ous ter­ror­ists rather than patients that they had dis­en­gaged from the duties and the respon­si­bil­i­ties of their pro­fes­sion. Neither the Medical Association of South Africa (Masa) nor the South African Medical and Dental Council (SAMDC) sup­port­ed charges of mis­con­duct or uneth­i­cal con­duct against the doc­tors involved in the Biko case.

The Biko affair marked a moral thresh­old in pub­lic life. The rep­u­ta­tion of the med­ical pro­fes­sion had nev­er sunk as low. Confidence had evap­o­rat­ed. It was no longer just a mat­ter of moral wrong­do­ing by a few med­ical prac­ti­tion­ers. Through the actions of Masa and the SAMDC, the whole organ­ised med­ical pro­fes­sion became impli­cat­ed in that wrong­do­ing. It was only after a small group of doc­tors (Frances Ames, Edward Barker, Trefor Jenkins, Leslie Robertson, and Phillip Tobias) suc­cess­ful­ly obtained a Supreme Court rul­ing to force the SAMDC to re-open the case against the Biko doc­tors that the coun­cil did so in 1985. Ultimately, Lang was found guilty of improp­er con­duct and received a cau­tion and a rep­ri­mand; Tucker was found guilty of improp­er and dis­grace­ful con­duct and was lat­er struck from the med­ical roll.

Other human rights vio­la­tions occurred at the hands of physi­cians, many of them in pris­ons and the mil­i­tary. In par­tic­u­lar, Dr Wouter Basson joined the South African Defence Force as head of Project Coast — the chem­i­cal and bio­log­i­cal war­fare pro­gramme of the apartheid gov­ern­ment. It was only in 1998, dur­ing the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) hear­ings, that the details of the activ­i­ties of Project Coast emerged: the man­u­fac­ture of bio­log­i­cal weapons, secret stock­piles of lethal bac­te­ria to kill peo­ple with pig­ment­ed skin selec­tive­ly, and chem­i­cals and drugs devel­oped specif­i­cal­ly for use against ene­mies of the apartheid South African gov­ern­ment. Although Basson gave evi­dence at the TRC hear­ings for 12 hours in 1998, he did not apol­o­gise, he did not show remorse, and he did not request amnesty. Finally, after a 13-year-long case with the Health Professions Council of South Africa (HPCSA), Basson was found guilty of uneth­i­cal con­duct in December 2013. Although he argued that he had act­ed as a sol­dier and not a doc­tor, that med­ical ethics were dif­fer­ent for mil­i­tary doc­tors, and that he had no doc­tor-patient rela­tion­ship with those he harmed, among oth­er argu­ments, a long-await­ed guilty ver­dict was reached.

Although the Sama issued a state­ment in sup­port of this ver­dict, Basson retains his mem­ber­ship in the organ­i­sa­tion Apartheid cor­rupt­ed the moral fibre of South African soci­ety in a man­ner that per­me­at­ed and broke the core eth­i­cal covenants of the med­ical pro­fes­sion. Separation between the pro­fes­sion and the state became opaque and ambigu­ous. Through this dense veil of con­fu­sion, a minor­i­ty of health pro­fes­sion­als were able to see their way clear and rebel against injus­tices in health care in the pris­ons and secu­ri­ty forces. However, the stance of many was one of indif­fer­ence or, worse still, com­plic­i­ty. Public hos­pi­tals are now ful­ly inte­grat­ed. HPCSA man­dat­ed that ethics train­ing for all reg­is­tered pro­fes­sion­als become com­pul­so­ry. All med­ical schools are now com­pelled to pro­vide train­ing in ethics, law, and human rights as a com­pul­so­ry part of their curricula.

Medical under­grad­u­ate train­ing ensures equi­ty in stu­dent intake and train­ing, except for a minor­i­ty of apartheid insti­tu­tions that con­tin­ue to use lan­guage as a bar­ri­er to entry, there­by deny­ing access to non-Afrikaans-speak­ing stu­dents, who are typ­i­cal­ly black. We hope that this bleak chap­ter of med­ical his­to­ry will nev­er be repeat­ed. * This is an edit­ed extract from a paper Dual Loyalties, Human Rights Violations, and Physician Complicity in Apartheid South Africa first pub­lished in the AMA Journal of Ethics. Story orig­i­nat­ed here: Apartheid cor­rupt­ed the med­ical pro­fes­sion October 6 2015 at 03:44pm

**