Pro-life doctor Jacques de Vos' bid to have charges dropped dealt a blow
De Vos 32, represented pro bono by De Wet Wepener Attorneys and senior counsel Keith Matthee, argued that the charges were vague and the long delay and failure to provide him with information by the Health Professions Council of SA (HPCSA) rendered the hearing unfair.
He faces four counts of transgressions and, if found guilty, could potentially be sanctioned with a warning, a fine, suspension or termination of his registration with the HPCSA.
De Vos landed in hot water for allegedly dissuading a pregnant woman from terminating her pregnancy and likening it to the “killing of a human being”, while he was an intern at 2 Military Hospital two years ago.
De Vos has also been prohibited from starting his community service.
Disciplinary inquiry committee chairperson Andrew Swart dismissed De Vos’s arguments for charges one and two.
Charges one and two allege that De Vos is guilty of unprofessional conduct as during December 2016 he acted in a manner that was not in accordance with the norms and standards of his profession.
Charges three and four allege that he Swart said: “We believe that we have sufficient information to proceed to render a decision for charges one and two based on the information provided to us.
“On charges three and four, we require pertinent information to make an informed decision and await further information to clarify at a later stage,” he said.
Swart said that the committee would await on transcripts of Monday’s proceedings and review the information before them and rule in terms of counts three and four.
Swart provided the parties with an opportunity to discuss De Vos’s plea to the charges and dates for the next hearing.
The HPCSA proforma complainant Zolile Gajana and De Vos’s attorneys committed to a return date of December 9, with both sides agreeing that the committee had received all the relevant information over the two days’ proceedings to render a decision.
Matthee said they would reserve the right to plea on the charges until the committee had made a decision on charges three and four, with reasons, and provided them an opportunity to consider their options, including approaching the Western Cape High Court for a review.