Legal

29 October 2019, DE VOS UPDATE:

The legal team for Dr De Vos argued that the case against him is a nullity and that it should be struck off the roll. Arguments continued until 16h30 and will continue today at 9h30.

Among other things, De Vos’ legal team argued that the charges are vague, the delay of almost three years is excessive, and that the HPCSA has not provided the prescribed information to De Vos’ legal team despite the ruling of the disciplinary committee on 27 August.

The HPCSA prosecutor argued that all information has been provided. This was disputed by De Vos’ legal team. Some additional information was then provided.

However, the committee must still rule on all the points raised by De Vos’ legal team.

Arguments will continue tomorrow at 9h30 at the Southern Sun Hotel, Newlands.

More more information contact Doctors For Life International at [email protected]

DR DE VOS HPCSA HEARING UPDATE

The HPCSA prosecutor confirmed that hearing will proceed on *28, 29 and 30 October 2019* at the Southern Sun Hotel, Newlands. Dr de Vos’ legal team will apply to the six-member disciplinary committee to strike the matter permanently from the roll. The hearing starts at *10h00* and is open to the public to attend.

Despite best effort of Dr de Vos’ legal team to obtain the prescribed documents needed for a fair hearing, the HPCSA has not provided it since 2017.  Dr de Vos (who is member of DFL) has been barred (without a hearing) from practising medicine since July 2017 on allegations that he advised a woman that her unborn child is a human being. He was then charged for unprofessional conduct by the HPCSA but the hearing has been delayed on a number of occasions by the HPCSA.

For more information, please contact Doctors For Life International at 032 481 5550 or [email protected]
(Issued by Doctors For Life International)

FAIR HEARING NO LONGER POSSIBLE FOR DOCTOR WHO RESPECTED LIVES OF UNBORN PATIENTS

In April 2017 Dr De Vos was prematurely removed from the Gynaecology and Obstetrics rotation at 2 Military Hospital, Wynberg. He was given no hearing by the concerned doctors. He was transferred to Casualty until the completion of his 2 ½ year internship period. (This is usually 2 years but as a result of his disability he was allowed to complete his internship in 2 ½ years).

During May 2017 the HPCSA was informed of this situation by Dr De Vos. During June 2017 Dr De Vos tendered to complete the remaining time in the Gynaecology department if that would still be necessary for the successful completion of his internship. 2 Military Hospital refused and handed the matter to the HPSCA.

After countless letters from his attorneys, the HPSCA eventually decided to charge Dr De Vos and set the disciplinary hearing down for August 2018, more than a year after he completed his internship period in June 2017. Despite the severe prejudice to Dr De Vos of this long delay, he was given no explanation by the HPSCA. A week before the set down date the HPSCA unilaterally withdrew the charge – once again, no explanation was given. Precisely the same charge was reinstated a few months later in 2018, but the new hearing date stipulated by the HPSCA was now August 2019. Once again no explanation was given for this conduct by the HPSCA, including why the long delay before the next stipulated hearing date.

In July 2019 the charge was changed to totally different charges, including changing the date and year in which the alleged offences were committed.

Throughout the period from 2017 up until August 2019, Dr De Vos’s attorneys have been trying to obtain information about the charges in order that they can prepare a defence. This has not been forthcoming. At the hearing in August 2019 this was brought to the attention of the disciplinary committee. As a result of this the hearing could not proceed on that day. However the HPSCA representative undertook to have the relevant information to Dr De Vos by 30th August 2019. The new date set down for the hearing was at the end of October 2019.

As of today, 12th October 2019, the said information has not been given to Dr De Vos. This information includes basic things for example such as the original letters of complaint against Dr De Vos which are required by law before any disciplinary process can be initiated against a doctor. Another example is the statement by the woman who dr De Vos engaged about her decision to end the life of her 19 week old unborn child, the subject matter of one of the new charges. The only reasonable explanation for this failure by the HPSCA is that there never were such letters of complaint nor was there ever such a statement.

The result of this conduct by certain doctors at 2 Military Hospital and the HPSCA, is THAT WITHOUT A HEARING DR DE VOS HAS BEEN SUSPENDED FROM PRACTISING AS A DOCTOR FOR IN EXCESS OF 2 YEARS. He has also not been able to do his community service. Every delay in this matter has been the fault exclusively of the HPSCA and their various representatives. He thus has been severely punished, and continues to be punished, WITHOUT any hearing or explanation.

In a letter dated 9 October 2019, his attorneys have now advised the HPSCA and the other parties concerned as follows:

  1. “Despite the daily severe prejudice to Dr De Vos flowing from the conduct of all concerned and the close proximity of his disciplinary hearing, other than Dr Molomo, no one else has responded to our urgent letter to you dated 30 September 2019.”
  2. “Given the failure … to comply timeously with the undertaking concerning the information needed by Dr De Vos to prepare his defence, a fair hearing on the stipulated dates has now become impossible. Furthermore having regard to the Constitutional Court decision in Stokwe v Member of the Executive Council: Department of Education, Eastern Cape and Others (CCT33/18) [2019] ZACC 3, any further delay in this matter beyond the end of October 2019 would be unfair. All things highlighted in that judgment considered, not least of all the length of delay at your behest, the complete lack of explanation for this delay and the severe prejudice to our client as a result of this delay, there can be no other outcome but that the HPSCA immediately withdraw all charges against Dr De Vos.”
  3. “Furthermore, to mitigate his losses suffered during the past 2 or so years, it is hoped that the HPSCA will accept that having served 2 ½ years internship he can now proceed to do his community service. In this regard, when making application for his community service you are hereby informed that unless you specify otherwise by the 11th October 2019, Dr de Vos will inform the hospital to which he makes application that he has completed his internship to the satisfaction of the Health Council/HPSCA and now qualifies to commence his community service. We are adopting this approach as our experience in the last two years is that all parties concerned simply either do not respond or fail to respond timeously to our letters/requests as regards the ongoing severe prejudice to Dr De Vos. Alternatively, they simply withdraw charges and then reinstate the same charges a few months later. Or they do not provide the necessary information to enable him to defend himself. The result of all this being, as we stated in our previous letter, that Dr De Vos has already been punished by not being able to practise as a doctor for more than two years, even though he has not yet had a hearing. AND AT THE END OF THE DAY HE HAS SERVED AN INTERNSHIP OF 2 ½ YEARS.”
  4. “We need to highlight that if after investigation it is established that individuals can be identified who were part of the cause of the unlawful damages suffered by Dr De Vos, especially from this letter forwards, such will be held accountable in their personal capacities. As we said in our previous letter to you, we do not see why the taxpayer should have to foot the bill for the negligence/mala fides of individuals.”

The HPSCA and the other parties concerned also have not responded to this letter of 9th October 2019.

The above is a very short summary of the efforts by Dr De Vos and his attorneys to resolve this matter over the last 2 ½ years. Throughout, the HPSCA and various other doctors have in effect done nothing, other than without a hearing prevent Dr De Vos from practicing as a doctor. The only reasonable conclusion to be reached is that the HPSCA has decided to punish Dr De Vos for his medical view, rooted in science, that “doing good, doing no harm” to the life of a human being includes the lives of unborn children. However faced with the medical evidence of people like Dr Warton (his evidence is attached hereto), it knows it will not be able to sustain a charge against Dr De Vos and thus has simply continued to delay the disciplinary process.

EXPERT SUMMARY OF DR CHRISTOPHER WARTON

Case ref: MP 073414179/20899438
In the disciplinary inquiry of: DR JH DE VOS

TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE

  1. I am a qualified medical practitioner having qualified in 1975 and have been registered with the Health Professions Council of South Africa since 1978 Registration number MP0203882. I have taught anatomy, embryology and neuroscience to the medical students and students of the Allied Health Professions at the University of Cape Town since 1980.
  2. I have written two manuals for the teaching of Embryology which have been used extensively by undergraduate medical students at UCT in recent years.
  3. The information relating to embryonic and fetal development relevant to this case has been very well established for many years and is not a matter of the latest research.
  4. The main question posed to me to address in this opinion is whether it is reasonable for a health practitioner, in the light of her/his undergraduate education in embryology, to regard a fetus as human life when seeking to comply with “doing good, doing no harm” to a patient.

EVIDENCE TO BE LEAD:

  1. TIMING OF THE BEGINNING OF LIFE

5.1 Biologically the life of an independent human organism begins at the time of fertilization (conception). At this time its genetic code is set and as a consequence its future physical characteristics are defined with precision. Thus if one were able to read its DNA at this time one could predict its adult form as accurately as one might by examining it’s adult identical twin if indeed it had one.

5.2 The physical differences between such individuals are the result of differing environmental experiences. Clearly the organism will develop enormously over the subsequent months and years but there is no event during development which fundamentally changes it from a non-human organism to a human organism.

5.3 Various times or events of development have been used to attempt to define the initiation of human personhood for various practical reasons but the life of the organism is one seamless continuous process.

  1. THE NATURE OF A 19 WEEK FETUS

6.1 There is no specific event which defines the developing fetus as being at 19 weeks. Its heart has started to beat by 24 days of embryonic development (3 ½ weeks). Early brain development is present by 5 weeks, fingers at 7 weeks, toes at 8 weeks, early fetal movements from between 9 and 12 weeks and so on. These fetal movements may be felt by some women in their first pregnancy at 18th – 20th weeks of gestation which equates to 16-18 weeks of development of the fetus.

6.2 Different organ systems develop at different rates, partially related to when they will be needed. Thus the heart develops early as the embryo needs a circulatory system very early but lungs will only be needed after birth and so develop later.

Brain function will, of course, continue to develop for perhaps two or more decades after birth. The 19-week fetus is obviously not cognitively advanced – certainly less than a newborn, but structurally he/she has a fully human form and obvious human appearance and her/his movements are already being felt by his/her mother.

6.3 We may debate philosophically or legally her/his status but it is entirely reasonable for a person seeing such a fetus to regard him/her as a small human being. In my experience that is a normal response to seeing such a fetus.

7. In the light of the above in my opinion it is entirely rational and reasonable for a medical practitioner to view a 19 week old fetus as human life to whom she must do good and do no harm. In my experience as a medical practitioner and teacher that is a normal response to seeing such a fetus.

8. SHOULD A WOMAN BE INFORMED OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND APPEARANCE OF HER FETUS WHEN BEING COUNSELLED PRIOR TO A PROPOSED ABORTION.

8.1 It is usual when obtaining informed consent from a patient to tell them all relevant information so they can make a proper decision. It is unethical to hide from them relevant information.

8.2 If a woman has an abortion and later discovers that the fetus was more developed than she realized she could legitimately complain that her consent was not informed. It is thus entirely reasonable for a health practitioner to seek to inform such a patient of the nature of the fetus whose life is to be terminated.

9. The question of whether the fetus is born alive may be of concern to those seeking abortion. If a surgical method is adopted the body of the fetus is dismembered during the procedure and therefore it cannot be born alive. If a medical method is used the fetus may be born alive or may have died during the induced labour. A fetus born at 19 weeks cannot survive even with intensive medical care. The most common cause of its subsequent death is related to the immaturity of the lungs which makes respiration very difficult. While in the uterus the fetus may be active and this is generally felt by the mother. If born alive the newborn may have a heartbeat, breathing movements and some limb movements. It will die within minutes or a few hours.

Dr C M R Warton MBChB LRCP MRCS HPCSA REGISTRATION NUMBER MP0203882

Dr C M R Warton
MBChB LRCP MRCS
HPCSA REGISTRATION NUMBER MP0203882

2020.02.18-Dr-Warton-Amended-Expert-SummaryDownload

Watch: Webinar presentation of Dr Warton on the Humanity of the Unborn

HUMAN ANATOMY LECTURER TO TESTIFY AT DR DE VOS HEARING RE HUMANITY OF UNBORN CHILD

UCT senior lecturer in human anatomy and embryology, Dr Christopher Warton will testify at the hearing of Dr De Vos, who was charged for advising a mother that her unborn child is a human life. The hearing is set down for 28 – 30 October 2019 at the Southern Sun Hotel, Newlands, Cape Town. Dr Warton’s expert summary, which was served on the HPCSA, is attached hereto.

For more information contact De Wet Wepener Attorneys at 057 004 0004 or [email protected].

DOCTOR CHARGED FOR ADVISING THAT UNBORN BABIES ARE HUMAN

Former Military Hospital doctor, Dr Jacques de Vos, has been charged by the Health Professions Council of South Africa (HPCSA) for advising that abortion is the killing of an unborn human being. Dr De Vos, who is a member of Doctors For Life International (DFL) will finally be able to respond to charges after waiting more than two years since being barred from practicing as a doctor.

Dr De Vos was a medical intern at 2 Military Hospital when he was suspended from the gynaecology rotation and refused to be signed off. As a result, Dr De Vos has also been prevented from commencing his community service year, effectively barring him from practicing medicine in South Africa for the past two years. Despite numerous efforts by Dr De Vos and his legal team, Dr De Vos has not received any assistance from the SA Military Health Service or the HPCSA to continue with his career.

Adv Keith Matthee SC, instructed by De Wet Wepener Attorneys, will represent Dr De Vos when he appears before a six-member panel disciplinary enquiry scheduled for 27 and 28 August 2019 in Cape Town. This case is likely to attract great interest in the medical community as healthcare practitioners such as Dr De Vos are often victimized and discriminated against for upholding the sanctity of life for unborn children and for advising women of the adverse effects of abortion on the mother of the unborn child.

The hearings are open to the public. The venue is yet to be confirmed by the HPCSA.

For more information, contact Martus de Wet of De Wet Wepener Attorneys at 057 004 0004 or [email protected].

DFL joins current Con Court Dagga battle amid FDA cracking down on Cancer curing claims

Media Release Embargo: Immediate release Enquiries: Doctors For Life Int. Telephone: 032 481 5550 Date: 07 November 2017 On Tuesday the 7th of November 2017 Doctors For Life International (DFL) as Amicus Curiae (Friend of The Court) and the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development (together with other South African Government Departments), will argue to the Constitutional Court in Johannesburg that the Western Cape’s High Court’s judgement earlier this year legalising the use and cultivation of dagga (marijuana) in the privacy of one’s home, was the result of numerous errors. DFL will emphasise the harms and implications that legalising dagga use will have, even if it is used in a private home. The submissions will also concern the rights and protection (the best interests) of the child. The respondents include Mr Gareth Prince whom DFL assisted the state in opposing in his 2002 bid to legalise dagga in South Africa, arguing then that it was his religious right to smoke dagga. The Constitutional Court judgement in that case was in favour of the position that the state has a legitimate interest in prohibiting dagga. Mr Prince is joined by various other parties who also seek to convince the 11 judges that a whole host of their human rights are being infringed by the prohibition of dagga. Even though the High Court did not find so, one of the parties, Mr Acton, who started the political dagga party, will still try to argue that dagga is even medically beneficial. “Medical marijuana” has been touted as one of the main reasons for the legalisation of marijuana around the globe by the pro cannabis lobbying groups, using it as the thin edge of the wedge to get it legalised for recreational purposes. Yet these assertions are so very often motivated by financial gain and not by reliable science. CNN released an article on the 2nd of November 2017 highlighting the fact that the American Food and Drug Administration ( FDA) is currently cracking down on companies that are making unsubstantiated claims that pot products made from marijuana can cure cancer. The agency responsible for policing the American food and drug market issued warning letters to four companies that are “illegally selling products online that claim to prevent, diagnose, treat, or cure cancer without evidence to support these outcomes.” It said in a statement, “The illegally sold products allegedly contain cannabidiol (CBD), a component of the marijuana plant that is not FDA approved in any drug product for any indication.” Federally marijuana is still illegal in the USA even though public voting processes have seen cannabis being decriminalised and even legalised in some individual states. Sadly South Africans are already being targeted by numerous unscrupulous and nefarious companies selling all sorts of cannabis oil concoctions while claiming they have medical benefits. These dodgy dagga products are sold with zero indication of the actual composition and quantity of the active ingredients. DFL’s medical members have had to deal with case upon case of elderly patients who have wasted thousands of rand’s on dagga oils and numerous other dagga products without experiencing any improvement or relief. FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb said in the statement, “We don’t let companies’ market products that deliberately prey on sick people with baseless claims that their substance can shrink or cure cancer and we’re not going to look the other way on enforcing these principles when it comes to marijuana-containing products.” The FDA said the 25-plus products that are part of this crackdown include oil drops, capsules, syrups, teas, topical lotions and creams. “Patients should always consult a health care professional about proper prevention, diagnosis and treatment of cancer.” Although claims vary from product to product, the FDA says fraudulent cancer products “often use a particular vocabulary.” The agency identified these phrases as the most common red flags:

  • Treats all forms of cancer
  • Miraculously kills cancer cells and tumours
  • Shrinks malignant tumours
  • Selectively kills cancer cells
  • More effective than chemotherapy
  • Attacks cancer cells, leaving healthy cells intact
  • Cures cancer
“The overarching point is that these products are untested, and some of the ingredients may present direct risk to the consumer’s health or interact with any medications they might be taking,” Jason Humbert, a regulatory operations officer in the F.D.A.’s Office of Regulatory Affairs said. He told CNN “They’re not a substitute for appropriate treatment, and using these products can not only endanger consumers’ health but waste their money and waste their time, as well.” DFL would like to caution the South African public against these and other false claims as well. Eleven judges will now decide upon the very fate our youth and the future of dagga in this country. Judgement is only expected to be handed down between 6 to12 months from now. The court case is expected to last for one or two days while listening to the submissions by the respondents, interveners, the state and DFL. Doctors for Life International represent 1500 medical doctors and specialists, three-quarters of whom practice in South Africa. Since 1991 DFL has been actively promoting sound science in the medical profession and health care that is safe and efficient for all South Africans. For more information visit: https://doctorsforlife.co.za]]>

DFL's legal team

Advocate Reg Willis. Senior Advocate for DFL[/caption] [caption id="attachment_3648" align="alignleft" width="225"] Advocate Tererai Mafukidze[/caption] [su_spacer size="10"] [caption id="attachment_3649" align="alignleft" width="225"] Advocate Mpati Qofa[/caption] [caption id="attachment_3705" align="alignleft" width="211"]Advocate Julie-Anne Harwood Advocate Julie-Anne Harwood[/caption] [su_spacer size="10"] [caption id="attachment_3757" align="alignleft" width="214"] Helene Davidtsz (University of Pretoria Law Clinic- DFL’s attorney)[/caption] [caption id="attachment_3647" align="alignleft" width="225"] Christo van Eeden (DFL’s Legal Counsel)[/caption] [su_spacer size="10"] [caption id="attachment_3650" align="alignleft" width="225"] Miss Estelle van Eeden (DFL Communications and Media Liason)[/caption] [su_spacer size="10"]]]>

Supreme Court dismisses ODM pornography appeal

Media Release: Doctors for Life International is pleased to announce that the Supreme Court of Appeal has dismissed with costs the application of On Digital Media t/a Starsat (previously TopTV), to appeal against the Cape High Court decision setting aside the decision of ICASA authorising the broadcasting of pornography on two of their South African television channels. Hopefully Doctors for Life will now be allowed to present conclusive scientific neurological evidence that has developed on the destructive effects and addictive nature of pornography on the brain, to ICASA. Doctors for Life International represents more than 1500 medical doctors and specialists in South Africa and abroad. DFL has commented extensively on these issues and has made submissions to the Constitutional Court and the Law Reform Commission in the past. For more information visit www.dfl.org.za DFL is represented by Attorneys Steve Schneider and Naomie Marais who instruct Advocates Reg Willis and Albert Mooi.]]>