Please write to the Health Professions Council of South Africa (HPCSA) at firstname.lastname@example.org to ask them to withdraw absurd ideologically driven pro-abortion charges against Dr De Vos and other health workers. Dr de Vos hearing was postponed to 9 December while the committee considers whether to dismiss two of the charges. Nevertheless, they refused to dismiss the two charges on abortion (below).
1. The elective killing of an innocent unborn baby is not ‘health’ care.
It is thus outside the scope of authority of the ‘Health’ Professions Council of South Africa. Abortion advocates should start their own ‘Death’ Professions Council of South Africa.
2.All good doctors try to persuade pregnant mothers from doing things that may harm her unborn baby such as smoking, drinking, risky medication, X-rays. Legislation requires warnings on harmful medication and cigarettes.
In all these instances the ‘right to self-determination’ (Count 2.1) is not absolute, but is compromised in the best interest of the other patient – the baby.
Why is it now absolute when the baby is being killed? In fact, all good doctors try to persuade patients for example to exercise, to lose excess weight and not to smoke, which compromises their ‘right to self-determination’.
3. Killing a baby is not part of ‘decisions regarding reproduction’ (Count 2.3). Reproduction had already occurred 19 weeks earlier.
4. De Vos is accused of ’emotive language’. The HPCSA is guilty of using ‘dehumanising language’ of ‘terminate her pregnancy’ instead of ‘killing her unborn baby’. Now they try to force others to use this dehumanising language. Termination of pregnancy is a euphemism for killing. All pregnancies are terminated when the baby is born.
5. De Vos is accused of failure to respect the ‘bodily integrity’ of the patient. This is false. The HPCSA disrespects the ‘bodily integrity’ of the baby, who has a different DNA and is not part of the mothers body.
6. De Vos is accused of accentuating his “personal belief or religious belief”.
– Firstly, the HPCSA abortion advocates are trying to impose their ‘personal or religious belief’ in favour of abortion on Dr De Vos and others. Why are pro-life views ‘personal or religious’ and anti-life views not?
– Secondly, they present no evidence that the patient believed any differently to De Vos on this issue. Repeated polls show almost all South Africans believe killing an unborn baby is wrong. Even many doctors performing abortions agree with this, but argue the lesser of two evils.
– Thirdly, the HPCSA has produced no evidence of a letter of objection from the woman concerned. In many cases young women are pressured into abortion by others such as boyfriends and family, and it may well be the case in this instance.
– Fourthly, the HPCSA abortion advocates have failed to produce any scientific evidence that the unborn baby is not human and thus this is not merely a personal or religious belief – but one of scientific fact.
– Fifthly, Dr De Vos is upholding the position of the Hippocratic oath, which all doctors used to be required to uphold including the HPCSA.
7. The injustice against Dr De Vos highlights the much greater injustice against the unborn baby.
HPCSA CHARGE SHEET IN THE MATTER OF J DE VOS
THAT you are guilty of unprofessional conduct or conduct which, when regard is had to your profession, is unprofessional in that on or about 22 December 2016, in respect of [name surname] (“patient”) you acted in a manner that is not in accordance with the norms and standards of your profession in that you did not act in the best interest of the patient to wit you:
1.1 dissuaded the patient to terminate her pregnancy;
1.2 disrespected the dignity of the patient; and
1.3 used emotive language to convey your beliefs to the patient.
THAT you are guilty of unprofessional conduct or conduct which, when regard is had to your profession, is unprofessional in that on or about 22 December 2016, in respect of [name surname] (“patient”) you acted in a manner that is not in accordance with the norms and standards of your profession in that
2.1 failed and or neglected to honour and/or respect the patient’s right to self-determination; and/or
2.2 disrespected your patient’s choices regarding her autonomy; and/or
2.3 failed and/or neglected to respect your patient’s right to bodily and psychological integrity, in particular her right to make decisions regarding reproduction; and/or
2.4 accentuated your personal belief or religious belief over the patient’s right to terminate her pregnancy and/or;
2.5 failed and/or neglected to respect your patients right to dignity.
Date published: 09/11/2019
Feature image: Ina Murison (left) with Former military hospital doctor Jacques de Vos (right). www.facebook.com
JOY! News is a Christian news portal that shares pre-published articles by writers around the world. Each article is sourced and linked to the origin, and each article is credited with the author’s name. Although we do publish many articles that have been written in-house by JOY! journalists, we do not exclusively create our own content. Any views or opinions presented on this website are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the company.