An anti-abortion doctor, who was prohibited from practising medicine for three years, is off the hook after the Health Professions Council (HPCSA) dropped charges of unprofessional conduct against him.

Dr Jacques de Vos (33) allegedly told a mother who wanted an abortion that she would be a ‘murderer’ if she went ahead, notes a TimesLIVE report.

The former intern at 2 Military Hospital in Wynberg allegedly told a patient in 2017 that a foetus was a human being. He allegedly likened abortion to killing an unborn human, while working for the gynaecology division during his intern year.

He was only a week short of finishing his medical degree before he did his community service when the council charged him, meaning his superiors could not sign his internship documents.

De Vos has not been permitted to practise as a doctor since 30 June 2017.

The council withdrew all charges against De Vos after more than two years of delays and postponements.

Priscilla Sekhonyana, spokesperson for the council, said: ‘The HPCSA has received an affidavit from the complainant indicating that she no longer wishes to proceed with the complaint that was filed against Dr De Vos. She further advised that she does not wish to testify against Dr De Vos nor participate in the hearing. Based on this decision by the complainant, the HPCSA has no alternative but to withdraw the charges against Dr De Vos.’

De Vos maintained his views on abortion were based on science rather than religion, but was charged for disrespecting his patient's dignity, accentuating his personal and religious beliefs over his patient's rights, distributing pamphlets at work about his beliefs and failing to remain objective.

In the heads of argument for the dismissal of the case, Advocate Keith Matthee said even though the defence had submitted ‘uncontradicted and unchallenged evidence’ from three experts, which showed that having an abortion may result in long-term adverse emotional and psychological damage to the mother, and that a foetus is human life, the council provided no experts to rebut the said expert witnesses.

According to TimesLIVE, he argued that De Vos was acting in the best interests of the patient when he informed her that to have her unborn child killed could lead to long-term emotional and psychological damage to her.

By saying this, De Vos was acting in accordance with ‘doing good, doing no harm’ both to the pregnant patient and her unborn child, he said.

De Vos, he argued, was affirming the autonomy of the patient by giving her all the relevant information she needed to make an informed decision.

Full TimesLIVE report