HPCSA’s malicious case

THE RECENT acquittal of Prof Noakes by the Health Professions Council of South Africa (HPCSA) of misconduct was expected because the charge against him was absolutely flippant and void of any substance.

The desperate mother, who tweeted the professor, it seems, wanted to know what was causing her baby to pass so much wind and whether it was safe to give her child dairy and cauliflower.

Young mothers tend to worry excessively about their children’s winds; it’s either too much or too little, so they will look for any medication for every symptom that bothers them out of fear that there is something seriously wrong with their children.

Often all that is required is a bit of reassurance.

The innocent mother tweeted Prof Noakes probably because of his fame. When members of the dietetic society got wind of Prof Noakes’ comments on Twitter, they went ahead like a bunch of headless chickens and laid a charge of professional misconduct against him with the HPCSA.

I wonder if it had ever occurred to them or the HPCSA that Prof Noakes responded to a mother who was desperately worried that she might be doing something wrong.

Any doctor who detects an element of distress in a patient will instinctively try his best to advise as best as he/she can to allay his/her client’s fears.

I don’t think Prof Noakes regarded himself as a paediatric dietician when he advised the distraught lady. He gave his advice based on his scientific training, because he cared.

For the dietetic society to accuse Prof Noakes of stepping outside his boundary of expertise is utterly nonsensical because it is common knowledge that the boundaries demarcating the limits of the scope of practice among different disciplines are wide, with a great deal of overlap.

While diet and nutrition are the domain of dietitians, it does not preclude healthcare practitioners from having some knowledge about the right foods for their clients.

Doctors and nurses are expected to, and do, give dietary advice to their patients on a daily basis, given the rise of obesity and diabetes in the world, so it is puzzling why the dietetic society reported Prof Noakes to the HPCSA on such flimsy grounds and why the HPCSA entertained such a nonsensical complaint.

The HPCSA should have dismissed it immediately instead of wasting such huge sums of money for so long to come up with a decision that was obvious.

All that this vexatious and exasperatingly protracted case did was to cause unnecessary grief to Prof Noakes, make his low-carb, highprotein and high-fat diet even more popular than before and place a huge question mark on the credibility of the dietetic society and its motive.

It’s no secret that Prof Noakes’ promotion of the Banting diet has had a negative impact on the sales of sugary drinks and high-carb foods. What he has been promoting has been followed in America from the middle of the 1990s when they realised obesity had doubled on the low-fat, high-carb diets introduced in the 1980s.

Recently professors from all over the world issued a statement in all the leading media declaring sugar has no nutritional value at all. In England the high rate of dental cavities in children has been attributed to high sugar intake through sweets and chocolates.

While the Banting diet may not be suitable for people with chronic liver and kidney disease, it seems to be ideal for healthy people who want to stay healthy.

The big question is: Did the dietetic society take issue with Prof Noakes because he blew holes in what its members have been taught for the past few generations, or was the food industry behind this malicious attack on a man who is genuinely concerned about the rise of diabetes and obesity?