Murder-accused paediatric surgeon Peter Beale’s decision to go home after operating on a 10-year-old boy, who suffered complications during the procedure, fell under the spotlight in court on Friday, where the doctor is accused of three counts of murder and two counts of fraud.
The first witness, a fellow surgeon, also told the court the only reason he could think of for Beale to carry out unnecessary surgery on three children – other than financial motivation – was that he was “mentally unstable or heavily sedated”.
Beale has pleaded not guilty to the deaths of three children, with the state accusing him of having acted recklessly.
He allegedly told the 10-year-old’s parents that the boy had a condition called intestinal metaplasia and required what turned out to be fatal surgery. He left the hospital after the surgery, despite the child suffering what’s known as a “tension pneumothorax” and a collapsed lung, reports EWN.
The insertion of a chest drain was apparently left to anaesthetist Dr Abdulhay Munshi, who was previously charged with Beale but was then murdered in 2020.
The first expert witness called by the state was allegedly “biased … did not do his homework, made reckless comments, and contradicted the findings of a committee of which he was part”, according to the defence.
The witness is a respected paediatric surgeon who worked in Gauteng’s private and public hospital, reports News24.
Advocate Ian Green SC for Beale had asked him why his testimony in court was different to his findings and the ruling of the Health Professions Council of South Africa (HPCSA).
The witness was part of the committee that oversaw Beale’s disciplinary hearing at the HPCSA in connection with the death of a three-year-old child, who is said to have suffered from constant constipation.
It was alleged that surgery was unnecessary as the diagnosis was incomplete – and Beale failed to get informed consent from the parents before operating.
It was also alleged he failed to explain to the parents in detail the risk involved in the procedure.
In the HPCSA ruling, Beale was found not guilty of gross misconduct related to this operation.
But last week, the witness’s testimony contradicted the findings of the HPCSA, and the advocate questioned this.
The witness said there were parts of the HPCSA ruling with which he had disagreed, but his views had not been recorded.
During his evidence-in-chief, the witness testified that apart from the financial gain for the procedure Beale performed on the child who suffered from constipation, the other reason he thought Beale might have operated was either because he was “not mentally stable, or he was heavily sedated”.
Green said he was “reckless” to suggest Beale may have been mentally unstable.
“You are not qualified to say that. You also had no toxicology tests to say he was heavily sedated.”
In response, the witness said he was trying to find a reason why someone would operate on a child suffering from the condition of the three-year-old because, he said, there was no reason to perform surgery.
“I was looking for another reason other than money,” he said.
The trial is due to resume today.
See more from MedicalBrief archives:
Beale ignored advice not to operate on children, state claims
Accused paediatric surgeon Dr Peter Beale struck from HPCSA register
Culpable homicide charge added to surgeon Peter Beale’s murder/fraud case