Dear Editor

A PATIENT of mine was diagnosed with terminal cancer. He requested a second opinion. I rightfully said, “It’s your right, you don’t need my consent for that.”

Got a second opinion, clinical opinion remained unchanged. He requested a third, fourth and fifth opinion. I repeat my position that it is his right. By the fifth, I sensibly advises him that it may be difficult, but at some point we will need to sit down and discuss the inevitable.

Why would I do this?  I do know, that as a doctor my clinical opinion isn’t always right; hence, a patient has a right to have it reviewed, not because he/she may think I’m wrong, but he/she is hoping beyond hope that I’m wrong. As a doctor I would be confident of my decision; therefore, I would have no concern in having it reviewed by my peers. But most importantly, it is the patient’s right, just like a convicted murderer is entitled to a second legal review, so does the patient.

Let’s bring this closer to home, the confidence motion. The President and prime minister accepted the vote in Parliament. Sent invitation to meet Mr. Jagdeo and plan for elections in 90 days, but then new information arose. What were they to do? Ignore the new information?

They chose to get a second opinion from the Speaker, Dr. Scotland. They are suggesting court action. What’s wrong with that decision? Mr. Jagdeo’s argument is that they are using delaying tactics. If that is true, why had they accepted the decision in the first place? They would have been delaying from the outset, I think. Why are the Western leaders, whom Jagdeo harshly criticised when he was in power and even during this present government’s reign where he suggested that those Western leaders should stay out of Guyana’s politics, remain silent?

The fact is that the government’s position only changed after they were provided with new information. Legal minds are expressing their opinions. They have a right to. The Bar Association wakes up after being cremated and buried for many years. Their President, Mr. Kamal Ramkarran, the younger son of a former PPP member for over 50 years, Mr. Ralph Ramkarran, suggested that the government should respect the decision of Parliament.

Mr. Ralph Ramkarran, in his column on 26th November, 2018, argued that 34 votes are needed for the confidence motion to pass. Now a month after, changes his position. Now saying he had misspoken. I have serious concerns with that. How do we know you are not misspeaking now? I’m no lawyer, but I do know if an expert witness is to misspeak in a court of law then his/ her credibility would be brought into question and the opposing lawyer would destroy him/her legally. I know some may argue that he did not express his opinion in a court of law. That’s irrelevant. He expressed his opinion on the most important legal crisis facing post-independent Guyana. If we are to believe him, he got it completely wrong.

Also, Mr. Ralph Ramkarran, your credibility has been brought into question for taking nearly a month to realise that you had misspoken. I would assume you would do research before you write your articles. I would assume you review your articles before they are submitted. I would assume you would re-read them after they have been submitted, checking for publishing errors. You were erroneous on a very critical legal issue; hence, any further opinions offered on this matter would be rightfully questioned. The fact that you have now, after nearly a month, realised that you have misspoken on such a critical legal issue would demote you to the rank of spectator. You should remain silent and stick to writing your weekly columns, while more alert legal minds debate this issue.

Now, Mr. Jagdeo. The government is entitled to exercise their right, just like my hypothetical patient who requested many opinions. I’m no politician, but what I do know, if the Speaker is asked to offer an opinion (second opinion), followed by a constitutional court offering a legal opinion (third opinion) and finally the CCJ to offer a legal opinion (fourth opinion) and if the government after utilising all those legal avenues fails, then Mr. Jagdeo will gain lots of political mileage unless of course, he has something to hide and government is on to something.

I have my opinion. I’m no lawyer, so I’ll take the position of the Bar Association during the 23 years of the murderous PPP reign, mute.

Regards

Dr. Mark Devonish MBBS MSc MRCP (UK) FRCP (Edin)
Consultant Acute Medicine
Nottingham University Hospital
UK