Former paediatric surgeon Peter Beale (78) – recently found not guilty of murder, culpable homicide and fraud in the deaths of three children on whom he operated – reflects on the watershed case which changed 'the whole psyche of the medical profession' in a Q&A with News24.
Q Your initial thoughts on the case and the toll it took on you – do you feel vindicated?
A I can tell you I was never guilty. I don’t think a surgeon does not feel the so-called second victim syndrome at the loss of a patient or a child.
This sort of case should not be heard by the National Prosecuting Authority. They don’t have the insight. They lined up witnesses whom I suspect were actually recruited by the main complainant.
As the judge pointed out, the witnesses were so incorrect in many of their statements that they certainly didn’t qualify to be recognised as expert witnesses.
Operating on this many children, because of our circumstances as both a paediatric and a transplant surgeon… mortalities do occur. They’re never easy to handle and are not necessarily due to any fault of the surgeon.
That was the case in every one of the three cases that they put together to try to build a case against me.
Q Do you feel you were painted as a villain throughout the case?
A Yes, I have been painted as a villain. At the end of 2019 there was a media trial orchestrated by one of the complainants against me. He invited journalists into his home and briefed them.
One seriously regrets the loss of a patient like that, but there were complicating factors, and that poor little boy just happened to have myocarditis.
There was never an error in his surgery at all.
Q Are you concerned you may be a target of a hit, considering your colleague, Dr Abdulhay Munshi, was killed at the beginning of this case?
A I don’t walk around in fear of my life, but a lot of people are concerned.
What you are suggesting is that one of the complainants was probably responsible for the hit on Munshi, and I think a lot of people do think that, and that's a failing of the justice system.
His murder has not really got anywhere.
Q Have you or will you reach out to the families of the children who died? And, if so, what would you say?
A Initially, I did. To express my sympathies in particular… my own distress about what happened should have been pretty obvious to them.
But once they (have) laid charges against you, you can’t speak to them anymore. I thought to go to the home of one of them, just to talk to them about it.
But there was really not the opportunity to speak to others. I drafted a letter to one, at one stage, which the Medical Protection Society disallowed.
I do absolutely sympathise with parents at the loss of a child. I would speak to them if they were amenable.
It would have to be a bilateral exchange; after all, they did lay charges against me, and now they need to accept the legal findings.
Q Would you apply for your licence to practise again, as the judge ruled you may?
A No, because it effectively ended my career when I was 73. Unlike some of my colleagues, I could still be practising now but I didn’t plan to. Maybe I’d have carried on one more year.
When you have been out of it as long as I have… although I haven’t lost anything, certainly not mentally…
Q Do you share any responsibility of what happened? I know you admitted to misreading a report …
A That’s true. I misread a report, but that wasn’t the reason we operated on that kid.
We operated for reflux oesophagitis, which was absolutely proven histologically and had a long history. One paediatrician had missed the diagnosis for six years. And his (the patient's) operation was long overdue.
I read it in haste in between seeing other cases. What I read was a specific finding that wasn’t in the report, but even if it had been, that would have been an additional reason to offer him that surgery as he’d had other histological findings – something that was likely to develop over time.
Q You mentioned during the trial that you regretted leaving the hospital when the child’s condition was reported to you. Why, and do you have any other regrets?
A In retrospect, whereas I had said I didn’t want to leave, and my colleague persuaded me to leave. He said everything was fine and he could handle anything, and I was only going 10 minutes away.
But I did turn around and go back and participate in all the rest of what would happen.
I do have other regrets but not concerning myself and it’s best I don't express those. But not any regrets about my own participation in this particular case – everyone had a perfect operation.
Obviously, I resent the behaviour of certain witnesses in court, which would be obvious to those who followed the case, but I won’t name them – the judge referred to them.
One by one, these witnesses appear to be self-imploding.
Q One witness did concede on the stand after the failed attempt to prove you had a financial motive to pursue some of these operations …
A Yeah, I lost some money. There was a guy who was in his Lamborghini and in shorts with a red bandana on his head. He was a conman and a crook. He brought his Lamborghini to the house one night… persuaded me to get involved with that kind of scam – that is something I do regret – but it was in good faith at the time.
I explained in court that I got it back from another source, which was unexpected, and it all balanced out.
When I was presenting some of my best cases overseas, and I was smarting from the loss at the time, I said something at a reception of that congress, and someone picked up on that. They actually tried to make that my motivation.
By the time these cases came up, that loss was forgotten. I never, ever operated on anybody for financial gain.
I never had to, I remained so busy all my career – something that was resented by other colleagues, maybe professional jealousy.
Q What was the unexpected source?
A I was the first person authorised to do part-time private practice at the time. That’s been very controversial because a lot of people also did it and some abused it.
It extended my working days sometimes to 15-16 hours and compromised my family life. But anyway, there was a need and demand, and I fulfilled my obligations.
Q Do you think there was a political element to you being charged and put on trial?
A Yeah, sure. In the original charges laid against Dr Munshi and me there was a political aspect to it.
The complainant at the time said he knew it was unprecedented to lay criminal charges against doctors in that sort of case.
That night, that poor little boy was a non-survivor, and we battled with him; there were quite a few people who had accumulated… associates of the complainant. Adriano Mazzotti was there, and I met two other people, Dali Mpofu… and Julius Malema.
I think they were also at the police station together.
Q It seems you took on a high-profile case …
A The person who referred him to me warned me this was dangerous. But I took on the case based on merit. You don’t treat a child who needs a certain treatment on the basis of who their parent is or isn’t.
What happened was totally unexpected and unpredictable. I was experienced at doing that operation and I knew I had done it absolutely meticulously.
Q Do you think this trial has served to frighten the medical fraternity and, in particular, surgeons?
A It did frighten doctors, certainly. People retired prematurely, people left the country, some declined to do high-risk cases.
I don’t know who now does the kinds of cases that I used to and can take on more complicated surgeries.
It was a watershed case. It did change the whole psyche of the medical profession. Had I been found guilty it would have been much worse. The fact that I have been exonerated would be a huge relief for the medical profession, particularly in South Africa.
See more from MedicalBrief archives:
Paediatric surgeon Peter Beale acquitted of murder and fraud
Beale ignored advice not to operate on children, state claims
Accused paediatric surgeon Dr Peter Beale struck from HPCSA