Richard Ness : Blog : Jane Perlez And NGOs Should Answer Their Conscience

Jane Perlez And NGOs Should Answer Their Conscience - 07 Jun 2006
by Eric

After reading the information regarding the 2nd June 06 hearing in Manado, I believe this was a landmark event in the ongoing criminal case against my Father, but it is also a tragic day. So I write this blog with immense sadness, and my thoughts and prayers are with Baby Andini’s family.

Dr. Sandra Rotty, the head of the rural health clinic (PUSKESMAS) in Ratatotok testified that Baby Andini died because certain members of a local group, including Dr. Jane and Dr. Regnolda, stopped the baby from receiving proper medical care and the actions of this group of individuals contributed, if not directly caused, the unnecessary suffering and death of a baby. [ For those that are not totally familiar with this case, Baby Andini was being “used as a poster child” and being paraded around a child who’s dermatitis was caused by “pollution” of Buyat Bay.]

Under oath, Dr. Sandra explained that Baby Andini suffered from a common form of dermatitis prevalent among nearly 10% of the population in the nine villages served by her clinic and elsewhere in the costal regions of tropical Indonesia. Even though Dr. Sandra provided the medicines, the family refused to administer it because of pressure and advice from this local group. Dr. Sandra also referred Baby Andini to Dr. Winsy, the Head of the Department of Dermatology in the School of Medicine in Manado. Dr. Winsy, who checked Baby Andini, confirmed to the court that her illness was curable and wanted the baby to be admitted to the hospital at no cost to the family. Initally, the mother was willing but once again the group stopped the family from following the doctor’s advice. Dr. Winsy also testified that the root cause of Baby Andini’s illness was malnutrition and bad hygiene, and not toxic poisoning. Dr. Winsy further informed the court that recently he successfully treated a baby with similar symptoms who lives in a village close to Buyat Pantai.

Dr. Sandra confirmed she had examined the baby a few days prior to the baby’s death and found the baby to be suffering from an upper respiratory infection and provided appropriate medication. After the baby’s death, Dr. Sandra noticed that the prescribed medication had not been administered. It is clear that under proper medical attention Baby Andini’s life could have been saved.

Until now the hearings have focused a lot on technical issues, but the 2-June-06 hearing refreshed the memories of Baby Andini being paraded in demonstrations instead of getting proper treatment in a hospital. This is a significant failure of human conscience and morality, and it raises two pertinent questions. First, why did certain group, funded at least in part by politicians, act against their fundamental mandate of their professions while claiming to represent public interest. And second, why did Jane Perlez fail to adequately verify the claims of these child abusers and instead encouraged anti-public behavior through her writings.

It is clear that the time has come for the Indonesian “civil society” to closely scrutinize themselves. It appears now that some individuals who have the tendency to act politically and against public interest have infiltrated some of the national and local “civil society groups” and NGOs. Baby Andini’s case highlights the need for these groups to take a closer look at themselves and the methods they apply to pursue their goals. One child’s life is a very precious thing. For those who knowingly and willfully successfully attempted to block medical care for that baby and that village are nothing short of criminals and for those that funded or use the exploitation of this child for political gains in my view are despicable people who should not hold public trust.

Our family knows the hurt and pain of loosing a baby. I can personally attest to that as I lost my little niece just over a year ago. That is why in my opening paragraph, I said last Friday’s court hearing indeed revealed a tragedy, and my thoughts and prayers are with Baby Andini’s family and for the unnecessary loss that they have suffered.

Jane Perlez deserves a special mention in the context of Dr. Sandra and Dr. Winsy’s testimony because it is in the pages of the New York Times that a common form of dermatitis mutated into what she calls “mystery illness” and where she and her paper elected to amplify the voices of child abusers instead of searching for the truth. For Jane Perlez the 2-June-06 hearing provides an opportunity to redeem herself from the reporting mistakes she has made. Only time will tell if Jane Perlez has sufficient morality and ethical standards to report about those individuals who obstructed Baby Andini’s access to proper medical treatment.