#JusticeforJasher

By now, most of T&T would have seen the heart-wrenching video of two parents begging for answers after having to witness a tragedy that no one should have to endure. I admit, I couldn’t look at the entire video, as the mother of a six-year-old boy myself. I couldn’t listen or watch the agony on their faces. I felt like my own world had been shattered.

I cannot imagine much less comprehend such a loss. No parent should ever have to live through such a moment. My prayers immediately went out to that mother and father and their entire circle that has been crushed by this. Their video captured the attention of our Prime Minister.

As a mother and grandmother herself, I am sure she felt the same level of hurt our nation did. As Prime Minister, she immediately called for an investigation, but what would an investigation on its own actually do?

I am no stranger to medical negligence lawsuits. As such, I am no stranger to the responses and actions usually associated with our various health authorities. Those who usually read my weekly opinion may remember the various times I wrote suggesting and just short of begging for reform in our health sector.

In T&T, the test applied to determine negligence in the medical profession is known as the Bolam Test.

This test stemmed from a 1957 case in the United Kingdom, whereby it was found that for a medical practitioner to be found liable for negligence, it must be shown that the medical practitioner failed to act in accordance with the practice and standards accepted as proper by the reasonable body of medical men skilled in that particular art.

My concern in calling for reform is not only about the instances of negligence by our medical practitioners, it is more about learning from our errors and ensuring that it does not recur.

Usually, in the health and safety field when there are accidents, incidents or near misses in the oil and gas industry, there will be a meeting which considers ‘Lessons Learnt’. I wonder if our health authorities ever consider the lessons learnt, because it appears that the same mistakes and/or errors occur over and over and over. But there may be a logical explanation as to why our lessons are not learnt. The medical staff at our health authorities are usually protected by their contract employment, so that, in medical lawsuits, these persons are not named as defendants.

Instead, the respective health authorities are the ones who carry the burden of liability. This differs from most private health institutions, where the consultants attached to these institutions are either solely responsible for any negligence and/or carry a percentage of liability. It is no wonder then, that consultants and doctors in private practice are more attentive, cautious and disciplined in their approach, versus the sometimes dismissive and rushed approach adopted by the same persons in the public healthcare system.

In essence, when the public health authorities are held liable for negligence, we, the taxpayers, pay for the errors and missteps of those employed within the public health authorities. This approach needs to be reconsidered.

In cases of negligence within the public healthcare system, consultants, doctors and other personnel should carry at the minimum some form of contributory negligence and if found liable, should pay a percentage of any awards ordered by the court.

Should personnel be held directly responsible for their actions and/or lack of actions, we may be able to see some form of improvement within the system. This failure to account for behaviour gives the impression that personnel are above reproach.

In the instance of Jasher, let’s consider for a moment the small adjustments that would have been the difference between this child’s death and a successful discharge from the hospital.

After the first cries of discomfort and the sign of distress on his little face, just one doctor spending a few minutes to walk to his bedside, have a chat with him, ensure that the dosage of medication was accurate, do a small sample on his hand to ensure there was no adverse reaction, simply a few additional minutes by those who know best, and, there would have been no need for a mother and father to be in the turmoil they currently face.

Yet, the dedication seen by the same practitioners in their private practice is not the same dedication in the public healthcare system. It makes one question whether the Hippocratic Oath sworn by doctors carries a different meaning based on settings and circumstances.

We will call for an investigation, an investigation will be ordered (as has been done), perhaps there will be a lawsuit, perhaps there will not be one. At the end of the day, that innocent child will not be given back the rest of his long life that should have been his to enjoy.

What is left is to determine the lessons learnt with the current structure and contracts in our health authorities.

If one must judge by the countless incidents of careless or dismissive treatments, of accusations of negligence, of other such incidents and complaints, then there has never been a lesson learnt and there may never be.

Aside from an investigation, at the very least, don’t allow Jasher’s death to be in vain.

Review, reconsider and readjust.

Let change and accountability finally find its way into our healthcare system. Justice for Jasher should not just be about answers but it should be about an undertaking that no child or persons loses their life in an incident that can be avoided and no other parents should feel this level of pain and grief.

Pavitra Ramharack is head of chambers at Pavitra Ramharack Attorneys at Law and can be reached at [email protected]