Dear Editor

It was with much sadness that I read the report of the difficulties encountered by patients needing needle biopsy of the breast at the University Hospital. I was also saddened because of the precise parallelism between the problems as stated, and that which led to the crisis and brouhaha at the National Chest Hospital in 2008. The result: the summary removal of two of the finest clinicians that ever graced the walls of that hospital since the pioneering days of Dr Richard Cory. Dr Mikhail Tulloch-Reid resigned as SMO, taking with him his rare skills as an interventional pulmonologist, plus two other American Board Certifications in internal medicine. Dr Dennis Pyne was “interdicted”, taking with him over 20 years’ experience here and abroad as a chest surgeon, his expensive surgical instruments and disposables (which the government service did not have) for use on public as well as private patients needing chest surgery, and also his unquestioned record of over 300 chest surgeries per year with a mortality of five per cent or less — as compared to 50 or so cases per annum by his predecessors.

There is no doubt that the team of Tulloch-Reid/Pyne brought an unprecedented level of excellence to the National Chest Hospital (NCH). Their visionary commitment to national development made them lease land from the government to build a centre of excellence on the National Chest Hospital grounds.

The public may not be aware, but the medical fraternity certainly knows that the genesis of the NCH problem was an unseemly letter written by a certain colleague, and widely circulated even among lay persons in breach of fundamental, ethical, and Hippocratic principles, accusing Dr Tulloch-Reid and Dr Pyne of incompetence and unprofessional conduct inter alia.

The year-long Commission (or “Committee”) of Enquiry set up by the Ministry of Health at great cost to the taxpayer, resulted in a “damning report”. Incidentally, the then president of the MAJ participated in the enquiry, rejecting the advice of senior colleagues who indicated the imprudence of so doing, for obvious reasons. The “damning report” received much publicity on the radio, television, and the newspapers. The report focused significantly on Dr Dennis Pyne. He was portrayed as the unscrupulous villain because he charged for the use of his expensive equipment and disposables (which government did not have) to bring quality, state-of-the-art surgery to those public patients willing and able to pay for the use of his equipment. Note the parallelism — patients at the University Hospital having to buy needles for breast biopsy. The “damning report” and the publicity created great damage to Dr Pyne’s name and professional reputation.

The Medical Council of Jamaica in October 2010 unequivocally refuted the assault on Dr Pyne, repudiated the charges, and exonerated him of all the scandalous allegations. There is universal consensus that personal pique, guile, and malevolence are inappropriate guidelines for conducting private or public affairs. Someone should apologise to Dr Pyne. Is it beyond expectation that justice will prevail and the honourable thing be done? Can the public defender intervene to ensure that there is a public apology to Dr Pyne?

John A S Hall

Medical Associates

Kingston 10