UWI’s statement on the Cottle baby affair is perplexing to me, to say the least. It appears to be a classic attempt at obfuscation.
I am not aware that anyone has questioned the operating doctor’s competence in performing such operations so to say to the people of Trinidad and Tobago that he performed more than 100 unsupervised C-sections in the past, some of which were high-risk, is nothing but an obscene distraction.
That is equivalent to saying that a pilot with 10,000 flying hours on a particular aircraft type should not be the subject of investigation after an aircraft he was piloting crashed on the runway and 50 lives were lost and $30 million worth of equipment damaged or destroyed.
It seems to me the questions to be answered are not whether the operating doctor is competent or the consultant was on call but not requested, but:
1. Is it that the doctor or someone else did not perform competently on that day and if not, why not?
2. Given the nature of the event was a consultant required to be present in the operating theatre during the operation?
As a citizen, I would like to hear UWI and all else in authority on these points.
A Mervyn Rawlins