128

Letter from Chennai

THE NATIONAL MEDICAL JOURNAL OF INDIA VOL. 12, No.3, 1999

Of all the sensational advances in medicine during this century,renal transplantation from live donors is the one which poses thegreatest dilemma to the medical profession; a dilemma whichshould agitate every thinking person. The doctor is forced toviolate the first tenet of medicine: primum non nocere, first do noharm. He commits grievous hurt to the donor of the kidney,removing a vital organ for no benefit to him or her. The medicalprofession reconciles itself to this violation of the very basis ofmedicine by arguing that the donor derives great psychologicalbenefit from saving the life of a loved one, and saves himself orherself the trauma of losing that person.

Around the middle of March, the New Indian Express reporteda renal transplant done in Bangalore, which presented a newethical dilemma. A young man with renal failure was on main-tenance haemodialysis, which he could not afford on his monthlyincome of Rs 3200. His brother had a full house match with himon HLA typing and considering the prospects of success as verygood, the doctors performed the transplant.

So where, do I hear you ask, was the dilemma? The problemwas that the donor was a deaf mute and mentally deficient, so hewas incapable of making a decision or of giving informed consent.His mother took the decision for him, and signed her consent forthe operation. One of the doctors looking after him said, 'ethicalprinciples do not solve problems, people do', and the team wentahead with the transplant, which, we hope, will work well, sustainthe patient in good health and save him the costs of dialysis.

I was deeply troubled, and communicated my misgivings tothe editor of the newspaper. This operation was not for the benefitof the renal donor. Had the guardian a right to give consent to thesurgery? This boy was treated like an animal, not as a human beingwith some rights. He was subjected to the risk of death, albeit verysmall, and to considerable pain, for the dona-tion of a kidneyinvolves a much more painful operation than the receiving of it.

Other correspondents wrote too. Ms Ujala Kumari said, 'Whenthere is a question of saving life, the first importance should begiven only to save life irrespective oflaw, order and rule.' She wasconfident that 'The kidney transplant will not harm V. N. Prakash(the donor) in any way. Instead, it will fill the hollowness in hislife and unknowingly or knowingly add a new meaning to hissilent existence.' For every renal failure patient who gets a renaltransplant, there are 50 persons who die because they cannotafford to pay for it. Since it is a question of saving life, would MsUjalajustify the patients stealing money to meet the expenses. Ifsome poor man takes two lakhs of rupees worth of her propertywith this laudable objective, would she feel that law, order andrule are of no consequence?

An astonishing letter came from Dr C. L. Ashok Kumar. Hesaid, in his capacity as President of the Indian Society of OrganTransplantation, 'It is perfectly in order to do the transplant.' Heoffers the following explanatory notes: 'First, the law. Prakash isa brain dead individual. Instead of suffering from a brain steminjury as it happens in a road traffic accident, he is suffering frombrain death due to loss of his higher sensory faculties.' Further, 'ifPrakash was a sane man, (he) would have been most happy todonate a kidney to his own brother.'

Dr George John, in a characteristically academic note, said thatDr Ashok Kumar's definition of brain death 'is not acceptedanywhere in the world' and proceeded to give the correct defini-

tion. He ended, 'Criteria are adopted after a great deal of thoughtand should not be altered just for a specific situation.'

Mr M. Z. Chid a also joined issue with Dr Ashok Kumar. 'Theguardian de jure or de facto has to function in the interests of theperson entrusted to his/her care.' Further, 'even if the mentallyretarded person was sane, it is a mute (sic) point if he/she wouldhave been charitable to agree to give donation.' I can vouch forthat. Almost half the perfectly sane, prospective, related donorsdecide that they do not wish to donate a kidney to their brother orsister, son or daughter. Many people are afraid to undergo anoperation for their own benefit. It is only natural that they shouldlack motivation to lay themselves under the knife for someoneelse. If we throw ethics to the wind, where will it end? Our mentalhealth institutions are full of mentally incompetent people. Whynot take their kidneys, and may be lungs, hearts and liver as well,and thereby give some meaning to their lives?

I had a personal letter from one of the doctors involved in thetransplant. He said that the newspapers had it wrong. The donorwas not mentally deficient. He was a deaf mute and also illiterate.There was no way the team could let him know what they weregoing to do to him, and they could not ascertain whether heconsented to the surgery or not. However, the doctor was con-vinced that the donation made the donor happy. This nephrologisthas the gift of clairvoyance in addition to his other attributes!

I am glad that so many people were in favour of donatingorgans, with or without consent. Surely all of them will gladlygive the organs of their elder relatives when they die, and pledgetheir own too. When most people are apparently in favour of organdonation, why do our cadaver transplant programmes languish?Or are we just happy to have someone else donate, as long as wedo not have to?

I have just seen a mass murder being committed on the streets ofChennai. The sobriquet 'Garden City' is usually given to Banga-lore, but Madras was never far behind. As a junior student in theMadras Medical College, I used to cycle the six miles from myhouse to class. I had the choice of two routes. I could go along theMarina, with its grand buildings and its vast expanse of beach, butI always chose to go down Mowbray's Road. The sun was merci-less along the beach, and the breeze was strong. But Mowbray'sRoad was lined with huge shady trees and I never felt the sun.Nature's majestic green canopy was no less beautiful than the manmade architecture of the imposing buildings on the Marina.

The authorities in Chennai have decided to construct a numberof flyovers. We too aspire for the title of Cyber City, and ifHyderabad, which leads us in this respect, has flyovers at everycorner, we cannot lag behind. Every conceivable departmentneeds to dig up the roads in this connection to relay pipes andwires, and in the process they have laid the grand old trees low. Iwalked down Mowbray's Road and found it bare. How easy is itto destroy in a moment an ancient being which has taken 100 yearsto attain its present stature? Should we ask the public for itsopinion on whether it would prefer to have a flyover or a tree linedavenue?

Delhi is a city of flyovers, but I do not think the traffic flowsany better than it does in Chennai. A traffic expert of Delhi saidin an interview on BBC that all a flyover would do was to shift thecongestion to the next traffic light.

LEITER FROM CHENNAI

In a previous letter, I mentioned the case filed by Dr FazlurRahman against the Tamil Nadu (TN) Medical Council in theMadras High Court, challenging the constitutional validity ofRule 1 of Part IV of its Code of Ethics and asking the court torestrain the Council from taking any action against him under thisrule. If I may refresh your memory: Dr Siddique Jamal and DrFazlur Rahman had written articles in a Tamil magazine, Familyhealth, in which they questioned the efficacy and safety of thepolio vaccine. The TN Medical Council issued a show causenotice to them in October 1997, threatening to take action againstthem for writing articles in Tamil. Rule 1 of Part IV reads: 'Theaction should be taken against the registered medical practitionersin cases where there is contribution in Tamil journals of articlesrelating to the description of the disease symptoms and treatmentif they contained the name and designation or address or qualifi-cations or photo of the medical practitioners.' The learned courtruled that 'it cannot be said that it amounts to prohibition orinfringement of the petitioner's fundamental right to express hisviews. But it is framed only to regulate the conduct of themembers of the Association in accordance with Article 19(6)(1) ofthe Constitution of India. Such a restriction cannot be said to beunreasonable.' One of the arguments advanced by the counsel forDr Rahman was that the Medical Council had not taken actionagainst other doctors who had contributed articles with addressesand photographs. The court ruled, 'Merely because the MedicalCouncil has not taken action against some of the doctors, thepetitioner cannot escape from his misconduct, if the petitioner hadcommitted such misconduct as alleged by the respondents ... '

As I said in my last letter, what bothers me is that there is noprohibition on these reprehensible activities being conducted inEnglish. It is only in Tamil that they become unethical. Is that notdiscrimination against Tamil? Or should one view it as discrimi-nation against English, as Tamil is thus kept more pure?

I have written more than once about the practice of institutions andpeople who own sophisticated equipment and give cutbacks todoctors who refer patients to them. Commission from consultantsto general practitioners or other consultants who refer patients tothem is clearly forbidden, but some people claim this does notapply to similar inducements offered by institutions. However,Rule 15of Part II of the Code of Medical Ethics cited above clearlyprohibits this category too: 'No members should receive commis-sions from trades people in return for recommending them ... 'Besides fulminating against the practice in my Letters fromChennai,' I made a specific complaint to the Medical Council ofIndia (MCI) against one institution, providing copies of thecorrespondence and the cheques, but the MCI refused to takeaction.'

The public of Chennai decided to take action themselves. Avoluntary organization printed and distributed a public notice inwhich it stated that 90% of Chennai' s doctors cheat their patientsby accepting commissions from CT, MRI and ultrasound scancentres. 'Whose money is this?' asks the pamphlet, and goes onto give the answer: 'The patient's.'

Further, these centres often entertain the doctors at star hotelswith money which rightfully belongs to the public. The pamphletnames six centres and suggests that the public avoid them, andpreferably go to public hospitals for scans if their doctor asks forone. I am not sure whether it is a good idea. How much of theequipment in the government hospitals is in working condition,and for how much of the time?

Another pamphlet is addressed to all the doctors of the city.

129

Both these pamphlets are in Tamil, and I am translating extractsfor your benefit. 'Medicine is a noble profession. Before enteringthe profession you took an oath. Remember the terms of that oath.Far from upholding it, you are committing the heinous crime ofhitting your patients below the belt, when they have placed theirtrust in you. It would be better to work as pimps. We warn allprivate medical practitioners that we have built up dossiers onyour nefarious activities. We know how much you have receivedfrom different scan centres for sending patients to them. We havegiven copies ofthe documentation to the patients themselves, andwhen you stand in the court oflaw they will give evidence againstyou. We give you till the end of May to mend your ways. If youcontinue to take cutbacks we will publish your names in newspa-pers and magazines.'

The Federation of Medical and Dental Associations of TamilNadu called a meeting of practitioners and operators of scancentres. Their letter went, in part, ' ... the crisis generated by theinterpretation charges compelling us to have this urgent inter-action with the giving and receiving groups to find a suitablesolution, acceptable to all concerned including the public. Wehave been mooting this subject in various fora during the last year,but for want of a readymade solution, it did not proceed further.'

But, worthy doctors, is there not an obvious readymade solu-tion? Stop stealing the patients' money. Reduce the cost of thescans by that amount. The letter goes on: 'Probably it would nothave been so bad if it were to be only a sporadic affair, butunfortunately, it has reached such proportions, it has become anopen secret, which cannot be tolerated any further. In fact wehonestly feel this meeting should have taken place some yearsearlier. Let us all open our minds, express views and solutionscandidly and arrive at reasonable approach, to restore the dignityof the profession ... '

The meeting was held on 21 April. Unfortunately, with a largenumber of people from different organizations entering, it was notpossible to verify the identity of everyone who came, and an enter-prising reporter from The Hindu gate-crashed the meeting andpublished the proceedings in the next day's paper. The Federationthen issued a.statement, reported in The Hindu of27 April, callingon 'doctors and scan centres to refrain from collecting interpreta-tion charges and warned that it would not cover up or protect anymedical practitioner who gets into problems by continuing theunhealthy practice which it had disapproved of.' Further theFederation said, 'it had started taking these steps a few monthsago, to gradually phase out the practice. The leaflets and noticesissued by the public organization had come as an additionalweapon for the Federation to enforce its control measures moreeffectively, but they had not been the prime motivation for theeffort.' What an incredible coincidence! The conscience whichlay dormant for twenty years just happened to wake up at the sametime as the public threatened to pillory us.

Not to be outdone, the Tamil Nadu unit of the Indian MedicalAssociation (IMA) also decided to embrace ethical practices. Thestate president announced to the press that the IMA had formed anEthics Committee, and he appealed to all the members to upholdthe dignity of the profession.

However, I am still happy that at last we have been forced tosalvage some semblance of honour. There is a lesson here for thecitizens of other states. This is a disgrace shared equally by theentire medical profession of India. Here is the solution to keepyourselves from being robbed by the nobility of the medicalfraternity. A little detective work, then threaten to publish thenames in local newspapers, and you might yet make honest men

130

and women of us. One word of caution. Make sure the scan centresreduce their charges by the amount they were paying the referringdoctors. Let them not take it as a windfall and pocket thedifference.

Letter from Glasgow

THE NATIONAL MEDICAL JOURNAL OF INDIA VOL. 12, No.3, 1999

REFERENCESI Mani MK. Letter from Madras. Natl Med J India 1994;7:37-9.2 Mani MK. Our watchdog sleeps, and will not be awakened. Issues in Medical Ethics

1996;4:105-7.

M. K. MANI

HEALTH INEQUALITIES: IS THERE A 'SCOTTISHEFFECT'?Often people take things at face value and rarely look beyond theimmediate situation or evidence. We all like to think that doctorsare above this and our training and experience equip us to dealwith things critically and objectively. That is why when you askpeople what is the main cause of premature (under 75-year-old)death in Britain, doctors will say coronary heart disease (CHD).1They are right; and yet they are also wrong. CHD may indeed bethe cause of death on the certificate, but an equally compellingargument can be made to ascribe premature deaths to povertywhich results in major health inequalities. It should come as nosurprise to anyone that in Scotland the life expectancy of peoplein the lower social groups (65 years) is about 10 years less thanthose in the higher social group (75 years).

Poverty and health inequalities are not just a feature of ThirdWorld countries, they are inherent in industrially developedcountries as well. The issue is less of absolute poverty and moreof relative poverty. It is not one of having enough to survive,although some groups such as rough sleepers in cities face thisdaily struggle. If citizens are denied what is seen as the 'norm' tofunction in society, then significant stresses are placed on them.One example of this is access to a car. A car is a luxury in manycountries, but in Britain as in other industrialized countries, it isthe norm. However, car ownership may have a major impact on afamily if they are financially just managing and no more. Forinstance, if the car needs a major repair or four new tyres thefamily may come under immense financial strain to keep runningthe car, resulting in psychological stress.

Following the ascent to powerby the present Labour Govern-ment in May 1997, the new Secretary of State for Health, FrankDobson, set up an independent inquiry into health inequalities bya scientific adviser. The group was chaired by Sir Donald Acheson,a former Chief Medical Officer for England and adviser to theWorld Health Organization. His report,' The Independent Inquiryinto Inequalities in Health, was published in November 1998, andis known as the Acheson Report. The Acheson Report was giventhe remit to:

- summarize the evidence of inequalities of health and theexpectation of life in England and identify trends; and in thelight of the review,

- identify priority areas for future policy development ... likelyto offer opportunities for Government to develop beneficial,cost-effective and affordable interventions to .reduce healthinequalities.

There was a rider to the second part of the remit in that policyproposals were to be based on scientific and expert evidence, andbe within the broad framework of the government's financialstrategy.

The approach of the group was to place their work in a histori-cal context adopting a socio-economic model of health and healthinequalities. They argued for the need to intervene on a broadfront encompassing social structure and policies, social environ-ment and culture, health behaviour, genes, early life, health andother services, and pathophysiological changes. For all the pain-staking work the group did-the references alone are invalu-able-the conclusions came as no surprise. The Acheson Reportin 1998 resonates with the Black Report" of 1980-that healthinequalities in England are a major problem requiring sustainedand comprehensive action. Incidentally, the Black Report wascommissioned by the Labour Government in 1978 but waspromptly buried by the Conservative Government in 1980 sinceit was ideological anathema to them. The Acheson Report alsoreveals that over the past 20 years the gap in health inequalities hassteadily increased and that material deprivation (wealth, or lack ofit) is a principal cause of this increase.

There has been much discussion about how to implement thefindings of the Acheson Report, nationally (by the nationalgovernment and national organizations) and locally (by healthauthorities/boards, local government, and local communities).Black et at.4 stated that there should be a staged programme ofaction by the national government, which includes adequatebenefits for poor people, especially families with young children.In addition, future policy proposals that affect income should beaccompanied by estimates of their impact on the distribution ofincome and effects on health (a health impact assessment), and anannual determination of what an 'adequate' level of benefit is.

In Scotland, as elsewhere in Britain, health inequalities haveworsened in the past 20 years. There is little doubt that theeconomic and social policies pursued by the previous Conserva-tive Government from 1979 to 1987 exacerbated health inequali-ties which were documented in the Black Report. On top of thiswork, some evidence reveals that in Scotland-with its distinctculture, legal system and new Scottish Parliament-there may beother forces at play further worsening the health of Scots.' Theoccasional paper from the new Scottish Council Foundationargues thatthere may be a 'Scottish effect' on health which comesinto play.

Scotland's health has improved over the past 50 years withbetter housing, education and a 7-year improvement in life-expectancy to around 75 years. Of course, there are socio-