Andrew Ong & Tarani Palani
July 30, 08
Hospital Pusrawi said today that its medical officer Dr Mohamed Osman Abdul Hamid did not conduct a sodomy-related examination on Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan.
The hospital revealed that Mohamed Osman, a Burmese national, is not a specialist but only a general practitioner stationed at the Emergency Unit.
Also present was hospital’s medical director Kamaruddin Ahmad.
After examining Saiful, Wan Mahmood said, the doctor advised the patient to undergo an examination by a specialist at a government hospital.
“There were no further examinations carried out (on Saiful at Pusrawi) in relation to the sodomy complaint,” he added.
Kamaruddin said the doctor who examined Saiful was not a specialist.
“He is not qualified to make any conclusions on sodomy,” he said.
Wan Mahmood added that the examination was related to Saiful’s complaint of having pain in the anus when passing motion.
According to the leaked medical report, Saiful has apparently told the doctor he was allegedly assaulted with a piece of plastic being inserted into his anus.
Hospital Pusrawi was thrust into the limelight following media reports on the findings of the doctor who examined Saiful on June 28, hours before he filed a police report accusing opposition stalwart Anwar Ibrahim of sodomising him.
In his report, the doctor allegedly found no evidence of sodomy.
Looks same, content same too
Quizzed on the authenticity of the report leaked to the media, Wan Mahmud replied: “(It) looks the same, contents are the same.”
“It looks genuine,” added Kamaruddin.
Kamaruddin also said that efforts to contact Mohamed has failed as he was on leave and was expected to be back next Monday.
He revealed that he last spoke to Mohamed two weeks ago. He also added that they had discussed about the the police questioning Mohamed.
“He was not detained by the police and the police were nice to him,” he stressed.
Both Wan Mahmood (photo, right) and Kamaruddin (photo, left) had no doubts on Mohamed’s credibility as a doctor, and added that he was a “good” doctor.
Below are excerpts from the question-and-answer session with Wan Mahmood and Kamaruddin:
Q : Are the reports circulating in the net false?
Doctor (Mohamed Osman) did not conduct a thorough check-up (for sodomy) - that’s under house rules. We have yet to verify the contents of the medical report. We have established an internal investigation group to verify if the contents of the original report are similar with the one that has been circulating around. We deny that Pusrawi has issued the report to any party.
Where is Dr Mohamed Osman now? Are you in contact with him?
Dr Mohamed Osman, he is on leave. No, not at the moment. We don’t know where he is.
Do you know why he went on leave? When did he go on leave?
On Friday.
As your press release states that the doctor did not perform a check-up for sodomy, what check up did he conduct? Did the doctor have a look at Saiful’s anus?
Saiful complained of anus pains so we did what is standard procedure.
(Did Saiful complain of) tummy ache or anus pain?
First, he complaint of tummy ache then he said that he had some pain in his anus.
In the report, it is stated that Saiful had not experienced any bleeding in his stool.
I am not sure of that.
How was the circulating report leaked? What actions will be taken?
That is what we are investigating now. God willing, we will find out how the report was leaked. Appropriate action will be taken. We will consult with our legal team on the next course of action.
The investigation is set up first to see if the leaked report is the same as the original and secondly, we would investigate who possibly could have leaked it.
If you have not been in contact with the doctor, how do you know that the doctor did not conduct a medical check-up for sodomy?
We based our decision on the medical report he wrote.
So are there two different reports? Are they (the report that is circulating) the same (as the original)?
It is the same report.
You do have the original report, so is it (the copy that is circulating) the genuine report?
I cannot say if it is the genuine unless someone confirms, the committee. Maybe, maybe not. It looks the same but it is not the original copy, that is with me.
Looks the same but it is not the same because we have the original copy.
So the report that was leaked is not from Pusrawi? Even if the letterhead is the same?
Yes, we deny that (leaking it). Not officially from us.
Are the contents the same? It is the original copy from Pusrawi?
Yes.
Did you talk to the doctor before he went on leave? When was the last time you spoke to him? What did you speak to him about?
I can’t remember, maybe two weeks ago. We just spoke about what happened about the Saiful’s case. The police questioning him (Dr Mohamed Osman).The police were nice to him.
Did Dr Mohamed Osman check Saiful?
The doctor’s name is on the report.
When will you get the results of the (internal) investigation?
I think in about a week.
Is there a more detailed report than the one that is circulating?
None, I don’t think so.
But there were no signs of sodomy.
The doctor advised the patient to go to a government hospital, HKL.
‘TRO sodomy’ was written in the medical report’s in bracket, does that mean sodomy had occurred?
I am not sure what is written in the bracket.
Can you tell us a little about the doctor? His credentials?
He is qualified. He has been in Malaysia for 10 years. He has been with us since January.
He (Saiful) was not examined for sodomy, but (how come) the doctor said that there was no signs of sodomy.
He came complaining of pain in the anus, so that’s a part of the routine, you look for pus, bleeding.
How is this different from an actual sodomy check-up?
He came complaining of anus pain not complaining of sodomy. So the doctor performed a check-up for anus pain not sodomy.
What led the doctor TRO (to rule out) sodomy? Why?
Because Saiful mentioned that he was sodomised. Sodomy check-up has to be done by a specialist not a medical officer. You need a gut specialist. We don’t have one in Pusrawi.
Does that mean that Dr Mohamed Osman is not qualified to make any conclusions?
He is not qualified to make any statements, any conclusions (with regards to sodomy).
Does the hospital stand by the medical report signed by Dr Mohamed?
I have not seen the report anyway.
You have spoken to Dr Mohamed who has confirmed that he examined Saiful and confirmed that he has signed this medical report, why is the hospital still not convinced that it is the genuine medical report? Why is it taking so long to match the copy with the original copy?
We just realised this. When? Two days ago. It is just like VK Lingam said, “It looks like me, sounds like me but it is not me”.
Have you been in contact with him?
No.
How is the medical check-up for sodomy issued? Is it just an external check-up or an internal check-up?
I can’t answer that, I am not an expert on that division. We usually advice these police cases to go to general hospitals.
You are not disputing whether the medical report is real. You are disputing if Dr Mohamed has the qualifications to ascertain that (sodomy had occurred). Basically you are discrediting your own medical staff?
No, but not when concerning this case. Is he suspended? No, he is on leave.
When is he expected to come back?
He is to return to work on Monday. He joined us in January 2008. We have tried but we cannot reach him, he is not contactable.
Do you think he’ll be back?
He is a good doctor but his examination is not conducive on sodomy.
If the contents of the reports are the same are you acknowledging that the report could have been from Pusrawi?
It could have been. It is the same.
There are two different writing on the medical report.
Yes, there are two different. The patient arrived to see a doctor, and he meet with a female doctor first. After he complained of his anus pain, than he was passed on to a male doctor (Dr Mohamed).
Was that person who leaked (the report) paid?
Anything is possible.
Is this the first time Saiful has seek medical check-up at Pusrawi?
Yes, it was his first time according to our reports.
Is Pusrawi’s ethics been compromised?
We can give assurance that our ethics are protected but this is a high-profile case.
No comments:
Post a Comment