Episode Transcript
[00:00:01] Speaker A: The best insight, instant feedback, accountability. The all new talk radio Freedom 106.5.
[00:00:09] Speaker B: Well, we do have joining us now a gentleman who has been with us on several occasions before, talking about all kinds of things. We have him here this morning to get his view on what's been going on with these babies at the neonatal ICU in Port of Spain at the port of Spain General Hospital.
Let's welcome to our program doctor Fuad Khan. Good morning to you. Nice to have you with us here this morning.
[00:00:32] Speaker A: Morning Satish. You're getting a kind of an echo coming through.
[00:00:35] Speaker B: Yeah, I'm not too sure why that happens or why it is happening, but there's nothing that I can do from this end.
I guess we're just going to have to work with it.
[00:00:45] Speaker A: Yeah, no problem.
[00:00:46] Speaker B: It's nice to have you with us.
[00:00:48] Speaker A: Are you hearing me okay?
[00:00:49] Speaker B: I'm hearing you loud and clear. We have no echo, no issues on this end when it comes to hearing what, what it is you have to say.
Thank you once again for being with us on the program this morning. It's a matter that we've been discussing for quite some time. Front page news, pre action protocol, letter, all kinds of allegations being made, investigations by Paho and this one and the next one and the other.
Let's begin by getting your interpretation of all that has transpired. And what are your thoughts about these deaths of these babies and associated issues?
[00:01:26] Speaker A: First, let me start by saying that for any baby to enter the neonatal intensive care unit, that is a compromised baby to start with, this is not a baby that you take home after somebody gives birth and is healthy. The babies that go to the neonatal intensive care unit, our babies that are preterm, low birth weight have a lot of medical problems. They start off being compromised, sometimes lung compromised. King compromised and immune compromise, which means to see they cannot fight infections anytime. If you breathe on them, it get infected. So these are the kinds of babies that go to the neonatal intensive care unit. Some of them are ounces, hardly. Some of them are not even a pound. Some of them are smaller than the palm of your hand. This is not babies that are normal who you take home. So you have to understand that criteria. So when you have that baby without a new intensive care unit that gives about, let's say 50% to 60% of them a chance to live, you will have all of them dying at birth without the need of intensive care unit. So this is what we is dealing with. I recognize that when I was minister of health and I brought down UNicef and others. And we were able to give Doctor Malan, Timothy and others scholarships to Huawei to become specialist in neonatal intensive care. The nurses there have a lot of tenure and they'll be there for a while. So the neonatal intensive care unit is a unit where compromised babies are located, and they are very prone to infection.
And that's where we.
[00:03:38] Speaker B: Is what we're seeing these, because the impression given is that this is an unusual number of babies to die at one point in time. At the same point in time, rather.
What's your opinion on that statement?
[00:03:53] Speaker A: The answer is yes. But the thing about it, you have to look and see what was the kinds of babies in the ICU at that point in time, whether they are high risk babies, low risk or medium risk babies. If they were all high risk babies, then you would get that type of picture in a new intensive care unit. What you have to look at, and nobody's looking at is how many babies around the same time survive and went home. That will give you an indication of what kind of babies that you were dealing with. So if you have 712 or whatever babies over a period of time, that sometimes happens in a neurotransmitter intensive care unit where infections take place, and in the best centers in the world, you will get that type of PTA if an infection passes through with babies who are already compromised to start with. So you have to do an in depth analysis of what babies were there and what was the medical strength or medical behavior of each of those babies.
[00:05:04] Speaker B: That's a real clinical dissecting of what we're talking about, because the impression that.
[00:05:09] Speaker A: Is what you have to do. Satisfied?
[00:05:11] Speaker B: Yeah. And your advice is sound, because the impression thus far, and I'm going out on a limb here in the public domain, is that these babies were there, but their chances of survival were great. And for some strange reason, it is the introduction of sepsis, or they contracting sepsis, that caused all of them to die. But you're right, we don't have that information about the baby's individual cases and how old they were and how susceptible they were, as you're saying, mild to very, and everything else. That information is curiously absent from all the reports and all the information that we've been given about what has taken place at Portersmith. This is not to justify what happened, or saying, well, you know, just partially because it would have happened. But, but it gives clarity to the discussion. Now, um, the, the other part of it is, is suggesting that there's some sort of human error that would have resulted in what took place with these babies deaths and going back and so on. What's your opinion on that?
[00:06:17] Speaker A: My opinion is this. Nobody has. The doctors cannot speak as I am speaking because they are under litigation by the lawyers. But the lawyers are feeding the press what they want to feed the press, and the press is reporting basically with pictures of subliminal approaches of the parents in grief. The lawyers are saying what they want to see because it's a litigation and it's all about making money from the dislitigation. That is what the lawyers do. So they are feeling depressed and sensationalizing it. However, medical negligence is not an easy thing to prove, but the papers and the general public are being fed by basically what the lawyers are saying and. And that is what is causing all the problems in the whole system right now.
[00:07:20] Speaker B: No, there's, there's a discussion that has. That has well been put in the public domain on the front burner, suggesting that the investigation by the NWR should give way to the investigation by Paho. The attorneys have said publicly, it's been reported that they have no faith in the NWRHA investigating itself, and they've gone as far. It has been suggested by some that it may even influence negatively the investigation being undertaken by Paho. As a former minister of health, what's your opinion on that?
[00:07:54] Speaker A: That is lawyer talk. Lawyer talk are trying to introduce into the system, right. A negative doubt. And once you try to introduce doubt into something, then you. Then you looks better publicly. So they're introducing doubt about Pahu, about Northwest Authority, etcetera. But as a former minister, Northwest regional health authority, where the mishap occurred, has to investigate the systems to make sure there was nothing towards and nothing negative, and their system was up to international accepted standards.
On the other hand, as they investigate puts and also look at the system of what occurred in the intensive to see if there were any shortfalls. And the boat will combine the board reports, looking to see whether a problem occurred, if a problem occurred, and how to fix it, if it did, or if no problem occurred, to indicate that this is where the board system needs to be allowed. Employers, on the other hand, job is to introduce Trump. The litigants will make their money and at the end of the day, they have to say, pahu, not this, not that, this one.
That is their job.
[00:09:21] Speaker B: Let's look at, as somebody who's been in the medical field for as long as you have, and you've sat in the chair of minister of health, so your perspective would be vastly different from the average individual. You would have access to information and procedures and protocols that the average individual would not. And we are discussing here the public impression being given by the litigants in this matter, and it's shaping public opinion for one reason or another.
If this matter does, does go to.
[00:09:54] Speaker A: Trial, illegal people are trying to introduce doubt. Once they introduce doubt, the case looks better. So everybody, as far as, if I was a minister, I would tell the population what I am doing, I'm doing it, what I do.
But that has been dropped out by the accusation of lawyers and also the parents. The parents are going sort of an emotional, heart wrenching something with different pictures on the papers. The reporters are reporting emotion because this is what sells papers.
If you see the correct, it will sell the paper. The employers are then trying to introduce doubt to win the case. So it's all about this whole thing. If you dissect it, it's all about not the attack on the vehicle. They have to look at that and make sure the systems were properly done. Internationally accepted standards of a reasonable.
Once they could have nothing to worry about. The legal aspect of it has to say that everything was wrong before parents were dispossessed of being prime ministers, etcetera. So that is where the political sensationalization is going.
Medical aspect of it has to be, where did I go if I went wrong? Is it internationally accepted standards? Is it reasonable standards? Did I do reasonable treatment? Once that is occurring, you have nothing to fear, because you will not, the lawyers, not produce negligent action.
[00:11:38] Speaker B: Yeah. I've said to my listeners that I am honestly of the opinion that any legal action now is intended at compensation and not necessarily at bringing persons who may, if were culpable to justice.
And that's for the obvious reason.
Parents whose children died have been described as victims.
And there is this term used in the entire discussion called justice.
Now, from what you've said to us, there needs to be clinical analysis of the various babies who were there, the state and stage that they were in, the possibility of survival outside of the ICU. And all of these things make up a collective whole of what the real picture was. If this matter does go to court, which I don't know if it ever would, because I believe there's a push towards an out of court settlement, I don't know. The lawyers will tell us more about that.
[00:12:33] Speaker A: I would tell. I would never settle this out of court. I'll go to court to the end.
[00:12:40] Speaker B: And why? Why would you?
[00:12:42] Speaker A: Because the thing about it, that's how lawyers operate. Lawyers operate on the fact that legal action takes that you do legal action and you hope for settlement because it takes too long in the courts. However, if I did nothing wrong, and I'm standing by it, and 85% to 90% of legal matters are won by the doctors and institutions, I would go to the final court position and I would. Because I would have to show that there was nothing wrong in the ministry's approach and in medical approach.
[00:13:22] Speaker B: Yeah, you. You made it abundantly clear the impression that you are of the opinions being given on this in the narrative that has been created in the public domain. One of the other narratives that has joined the discussion is the Couva Children's Hospital.
And it was said very publicly that if the Couva children's Hospital was operational, these deaths might not have occurred. Now, when I heard that statement, I came to my listeners and I said, I don't know how that could have been, simply for one reason. The people who went to Port au Spain general were in a catchment area. They would have gone to Port au Spain general, regardless of if Couva was around, it stands to reason that they would have been there.
So the question is, how would Coova have assisted, as a minute, as the minister of health, when the Coover Children's hospital was commissioned back just before the election in 2025, what's your opinion on that statement that had the Couva children's Hospital been open, this wouldn't have happened?
[00:14:27] Speaker A: That is on my. I would say that is a political statement. That is not a medical statement. It is a statement done to whether the coverage hospital Nikki was open and not open. The same babies would have been there, and the same approach would have been taken and the same result would have taken.
It would make no difference.
[00:14:48] Speaker B: Yeah, that's a comment that many people don't want to digest, because when I am outside of the radio, when people and I tell them the very same thing, I just don't see how it would have helped. People have all kinds of negative things to say. But as a former minister of health now, let's just say this happened under your tenure and you would have had to address it. What would have been your approach?
[00:15:13] Speaker A: My approach would have been exactly the approach that has been taken right now, but I would have gone further. So I would treat the parents as litigants and I would treat the whole thing as a legal matter, and I would make sure that there was nothing done that was incorrect medically in the nature that would. I would have done that.
[00:15:41] Speaker B: Yeah, we need to take a couple quick messages. When we get back, we take a couple calls as well as we continue our discussion. For those of you who may have joined us Midway, we are speaking with former Sama Bharatara MP, former minister of health, doctor Fuad Khan. Stay with us.
Welcome back. 6273, 223-625-2257 and your WhatsApp messages. Send those to 306-1065 we have with us still former Salman Bharatara MP, former minister of health, Doctor Fuad Khan. Let's take one of two of your calls quickly. Hello. Good morning.
[00:16:21] Speaker C: Good morning.
Good morning to you, Mister Khan.
Doctor Khan. Sorry. Doctor Khan, I know that you were one of the better health ministers over the years in this country. Right? It's a fact. And your discourse this morning, this status was very instructive and. But however, I heard you made some comments with respect to legal representation of the mothers who lost their babies. And you seem to be very critical of that. But all over the world, you have legal mitigation with respect in the health ministry. So I want to make something really wrong, really wrong with lawyers. The nature of their work. To represent people in any instances, especially in this case. I will listen up there. Thank you very much.
[00:17:14] Speaker B: I don't seem to. I don't know. Doctor Khan understands what you're asking. But I don't understand what you're asking. Doctor Khan, do you understand? Did you grasp the question?
[00:17:24] Speaker A: No, I don't grasp the question. But what I'm saying is that everybody has to play their part. The doctors, the lawyers, the parents. Everybody's playing the part. But you have to understand something. At the end of the day, you have to make sure that the neonatal intensive care unit functions well. Because if there is not functioning well, babies who are being. Who are both in normal centers, if there's no place to go to, those babies will die on birth.
The new data intensive care unit gives them a 50% chance of survival.
[00:18:04] Speaker B: Let's take another call. Hello. Good morning.
[00:18:07] Speaker D: A present.
[00:18:07] Speaker A: Good morning.
[00:18:08] Speaker D: Satish.
[00:18:08] Speaker A: A present.
[00:18:08] Speaker D: Good morning, Doctor Khan. Doctor Khan has former minister of health. Can you tell us about the kutman that were furnished at the Couva children's hospital?
How much was there? And if you are aware, if it is still there, or if it was removed, where it is, and so on. I wait on your comment. Thank you.
[00:18:31] Speaker A: At the Couva hospital, we had a lot of equipment. The equipment was there, but it's just equipment. It wasn't commissioned. So the equipment had to be commissioned before it starts working. So at the end of the day we left before the commission into place and the commissioning of equipment was supposed to be done by the other, the, um, minister when we left.
[00:18:58] Speaker B: Second of the call. Hello, good morning.
[00:19:01] Speaker E: Morning satish morning to your guest, Doctor Khan and listeners.
[00:19:06] Speaker A: Morning.
[00:19:07] Speaker E: Doctor Khan, I wanted to ask you for the benefit of clarity and governance, Candy Coover Hospital is it really a children's hospital or is it more towards a general type hospital? When we hear of the different ward space and bed space and the burns unit, etc. Etcetera, and if it is the conclusion or whatever that is a children's hospital, don't you think on reflection and in retrospect, that perhaps it would have been a better idea to have a more general type hospital in central somewhere that when the first instance would have been able and prepared to respond to point Lisa in cases of emergencies, etc.
[00:19:53] Speaker A: Etc.
[00:19:53] Speaker E: With that development there, and perhaps develop your other hospitals around point 14, Arima Porter, Spain Grande, etcetera, your children's department and make sure that we had those facilities on par, as best as we can and focus more on a general type hospital for somewhere in south, in central Trinidad. Thank you, princess.
[00:20:18] Speaker B: Thank you so much for your.
[00:20:19] Speaker A: That was the plan.
That hospital, that Couva hospital was at about more adult beds, children beds. It was supposed to have a burn unit to take care of any mishaps occurring in the point Lisa San surroundings. We also put in place the Arima hospital. We had the point 14 hospital. We were going to do over the Sanford at the hospital and also the grandiose was in the pipeline. They would have had patchment areas for exactly what you're saying. So the COVID children hospital was given that need by the honorable prime minister at the time because we wanted area that specialized work could go on. But there were more in that hospital. So it's basically could be called children hospital once in cold, but the actual functioning would be general.
[00:21:25] Speaker B: Doctor Khan, are you able to stay with us until after the 08:00 hour or is your time limited?
[00:21:29] Speaker A: No, no, after going up.
[00:21:31] Speaker B: Okay, well, let me just ask you, because we've spoken extensively about this, you age the children and all of those, but it would be remiss of me if not to get a comment at least closing otherwise on some of the developments we see taking place with the UNC front page news today calling for disadvants to go, a lot of discussions taking place and all those things. What's your view on what's going on? Is it healthy? Is it unhealthy?
[00:21:56] Speaker A: My view of it is that the five people who are calling for internal elections are just calling for elections. Nobody is calling for the leader. It's only one person calling leaders to step down so far.
MP Rambali. The thing about it is that standing up on that platform and talking about firing all that is I could tell you it has been a setup and they were told to be shouting that out for the media to hear. And as usual that is the method of approach of the masses who go to these meetings. They are non thinking people and they just run talk like that. If they sit down and think about you will end up with nothing eventually and you end up with less hangers on. You have to look at and deal with dissidents and make sure the dissident negotiation as an approach come across your side of thinking. If that's what negotiated agreements are about, you cannot just have one leader losing everything. Strategy is questionable and you follow that leader like the Pied piper into the river and you die while the Pied piper is carrying rid of it. You have to be smarter, determine where the party needs to go rather than border.
That is sensation.
Whoever it is did that in the meeting, achieve the objective because they got up front page.
[00:23:39] Speaker B: Yeah. Doctor Gandhi, we're going to have to leave it here this morning. Thank you for being with us here this morning and I'm sure we'll have further discussions on all of these developments moving forward. Thank you once again for being here this morning.
And that of course is Doctor Fuad Khan. That's where we dropped the question.
[00:23:54] Speaker A: The best insight, instant feedback, accountability. The all new talk radio Freedom 106.5.
