“We Risk Missing The Bigger Issues” — GMA President On Charles Amissah Report | Point of View

Added: 2026-05-18

[00:00:00]When Shazam died, you issued you people issued a series of statements proud to even the committee's work and you dealt with systemic issues calling for calm.

[00:00:10]What what what was your reaction to what was put out last Wednesday?

[00:00:16]So um so I would I appeared before the committee as a representative of the Ghana Medical Association. We were dozier actually >> prepared for us to make our points and to also um identify the problems that we think you know have been systemic and also have been longstanding you know and what we think the policy issues should be going forward to address them. So I can understand that this what were presented was probably just part of the report. Um I have not seen the the entire report but the PowerPoint that um my good teacher professor Akusa presented I've had um um um hands on it and I think half of it was about um the persons that were thought to have committed some wrongs. The rest were about other recommendations. But like we've said before um we risk losing an opportunity to address the issues holistically and um it appears foreign the presentation also that the media everywhere I've gone it's about the doctors when are they going the nurses what will happen to them but I have always used opportunity to reiterate the fact that if we don't approach it holistically and just focus on the individuals 10 years time I'll be on retirement and this issue is rare it's ugly head again you know so our initial um posture was that the findings were unexpected appears the focus was were on the individual and which we think uh ought to be pointed out were you surprised when professor Kosa said Charles did not die from the accident initially but he died from he died a slow painful death from medical negligence. That was a very big thing for him to say >> beggy and um for me I probably would have used that word. Then the thing is an investigative committee of that nature it is not a judicializa judicial committee. So they cannot pronounce on you know the guilty or otherwise of persons involved. At best they probably would say that uh there's reasonable belief to say that they committed some wrong and if they indeed believe so then the proper thing is what they've done to refer them to the appropriate body who would now go into much more detail call evidence because at that um forum I have served on the disciplinary committee of medical and data council for over 13 years and they come with your lawyers you have to aduce evidence it's quite judiciary we take evidences We take uh you know witness statements, we cross-examine, people even appeal their decisions. So it is at that stage that when it is concluded finally that somebody can be pronounced as found guilty of a certain charge and therefore the requisite sanctions. So I think that um you know that's what the pronouncement the nature of what they did is what has you know ended the public. Maybe the terms of reference gave them the latitude to get into such issues in the sense that maybe they were asked to find out what led to Charles a Mrs. death the key causes and make recommendations. So I think they probably interpreted their mandate more broadly. But is cause of death not a medical issue? It's not a judicial issue. Right? So if a pathologist is telling you how somebody died, in fact if a judge wants to make that determination, he probably call a pathologist because a pathologist is the expert. So if the pathologist is examining evidence and speaking to people, he may feel he has the right to pronounce on cause of death in that very strong way.

[00:04:14]>> Yes. But they were not sitting there as judges but they were factf finding team or committee. So uh to go ahead and make pronounce with definitive yes um the pathology report might suggest so but there's a value chain from how what happened how the patient was carried what happened in transition all the three hospitals what might have gone am I miss or were done wrong or right and then finally to his the point of death.

[00:04:50]So you know yes postmotem you know sets out exactly what might have happened but the capability in arriving at that diagnosis has to be properly looked into that committee for me uh might suggest but then when you now subject it to a proper judicial or quizer judicial or disciplinary inquiry the the proof is more stricter.

[00:05:18]>> Fair enough. But you notice as you rightly said, they've been referred to quote unquote the appropriate hospital or institutional bodies who may then institute the quiz judicial process. So the medical and dental council.

[00:05:32]>> So in a sense he's put the evidence out there before the quiza judicial process begins.

[00:05:39]>> Absolutely. And I think you you you just nailed it. And um you know secondly it is also prejudging and um might influence the committee's account because he's a person of um high social standing and he's a pathologist you know so >> it's not about he is a committee right >> there's a committee I'm guessing >> so you want to separate do you feel like what he put out may not be the full report in the sense that >> no I don't think it was a full report >> no what I'm saying is that the way the report may be 50 pages 100 pages he put out some slides So is it your your view that maybe that was his interpretation of the full report because the committee had about seven members including different people?

[00:06:19]>> Yes. So the thing that I um you see usually I've been part of these processes in the past and what happens usually is that you don't even mention names. You say certain individuals have been found potentially cable copable and therefore they referred for further investigation by the relevant. So what you risk doing if the approach that we did was that you tag the people. So next time when one they may be found not guilty and even if they do and they've served their assumptions in camp patients may be reluctant to go seeing them maybe they would have cured or ped themselves of the wrongdoing and so usually it is not done where names are >> out of the 15 recommendations about eight or nine were about the people.

[00:07:05]Meanwhile, there are wider systemic issues that ought to also have captured our attention. But I'm just saying that the big report may not have didn't include that.

[00:07:15]>> But the manner of the presentation have shaped the public discussion and the focus is on the on the individuals. Fair enough. We as an association >> have elected to support them. I'm not saying nobody is guilty but we have one listed in support of psychologist or psychiatrist support them through the process. We are giving them the legal support as well and then we police the process to to make sure that it is fair and it is equitable and it is just.

[00:07:45]>> All right. I I I I just wanted to ask you around the the the public outrage >> whether you feel that could have contributed to the way the findings were communicated because we've had vox pops of people I mean when the child miss issue happened people did vox pops and people were very upset and then there's another abig girl lady at the kasawa mother and child >> and there's a lot of public anger about how health professionals seem callous and insensitive as an association.

[00:08:23]Forget about the committee's report. Do you hear the people when they say indeed you heard the reports we played joined the oadia program >> and the woman said they've killed my daughter. So there's a strong feeling in the public that the health professionals are just they don't care.

[00:08:39]Well, I think that um if you offer service, your greatest asset in improving your service is feedback. And we value >> feedback wherever is coming from either through the general public, our patients or even our employees. Um it's unfortunate that sometimes the public feel this way and sometimes rightly so.

[00:09:02]But I know and I'm a teacher myself and we teach medical ethics in school at the time of graduation. um through the induction process we teach them there's almost every quarter continuous professional development activities that we we we do for our our members and so we expect and that's an expectation that they would apply these principles of course uh bad nuts everywhere you go but I'll just use the opportunity to um tell our members not just doctors but health professionals to say that >> this is the feedback sometimes we get so I know there are challenges where we find ourselves that and I challenge those in circum let's do our best sometimes I'm just about the communication um Bon I have received calls from many relatives you've been there for 3 days nothing has happened I said no way can never happen in Kibu we have 24-hour cover of doctors and even the the least you find is the most doctor so have you spoken to the there's a cafe and then I'll go there and find out that there's an engagement But it is not personal enough. So they don't appreciate what we're doing, you know.

[00:10:13]So I think our approach must also change and lead lead the patients and relatives into what you're doing so that they can appreciate what you do. Yes, if there are challenges, one the duty of a doctor if you have a challenge is to document, tell your superior number two and call for help. But if you raise your hands in h your arms up and then give up and then don't do what expected of you that is where the challenges would happen. But that's one side. The flip side is that the genuine challenges that we face we call on the relevant authorities the government and ministry to help us. They are physical in nature.