Thaksin’s actual illness revealed in fifth hearing of “Thaksin’s 14th Floor” case

Hospital admission and medical treatment provided to Mr. Thaksin Shinawatra, the former Prime Minister, were subject to intensive inquiry by the Supreme Court’s Criminal Division for Holders of Political Positions in its fifth hearing yesterday. And the facts about his illness and health conditions during his 6-month hospital stay have been revealed

The Court held its fifth hearing yesterday regarding witness testimony in a high-profile court deliberation concerning the extended hospital stay of Mr. Thaksin at the Police General Hospital’s 14th floor. 

Mr. Thaksin was sentenced to eight years in prison for three corruption cases, which he claimed were politically motivated. He was later granted a royal pardon for his service to the country after returning to Thailand. This prompted his jail term to be reduced to one year. 

On the night of August 22, the day he had arrived, he was transferred from the Bangkok Remand prison’s quarantine room and admitted to the Police General Hospital after developing acute symptoms including chest tightness, and had since reportedly stayed in the hospital on its 14th floor for six months. He was then granted parole and continued staying outside the prison at his residence for the rest of the next six months. These treatments resulted in him never spending a single night in prison, raising public outcries over a double standard in the country’s corrections process and justice delivery. 

The Court, which has inquisitorial power, eventually took up the case to examine whether the corrections process in his case was really implemented and completed following its ruling. It’s scheduled to hear the witness testimonies seven times. The final session is set on July 30, in which  the Cabinet’s long-time legal advisor and once a former Deputy PM in the Thaksin Government, Prof. Dr. Wissanu Krea-ngam will be the witness for the offender.

In the fifth court hearing yesterday, six current and former executives and doctors at the Police General Hospital were summoned to testify before the Court. They were the former and current directors of the hospital, the attending doctor, a cardiac doctor who examined cardiovascular disease for him, and two orthopaedic surgeons who performed surgeries on his finger and shoulder.

The Court intensively inquired into the hospital admission and related rules and procedures, as well as the medical treatments provided to Mr. Thaksin during his six-month stay in the hospital. 

The fifth hearing followed the fourth session, in which protocols and regulations concerning multiple extensions of his hospital stay were inquired into by the Court on Tuesday. (Read: Protocols and regulations concerning extensions of hospital stay in “Thaksin’s 14th Floor” case inquired in fourth hearing of Supreme Court)

The hearing lasted around five hours and was extended into the afternoon session as the Court spent nearly two hours questioning the attending doctor. The witnesses were also provided with critical documentary evidence to carefully go through to accompany their testimonies, including doctors’ progress notes recording Mr. Thaksin’s daily health conditions and their medical opinion certificates used to accompany the multiple hospital stay extensions.

Due to the sensitivity of the information and the issues being discussed, the Court maintained its order of imposing a ban on note-taking during witness testimonies, alongside the dissemination of detailed witness accounts and related documentary evidence. Nevertheless, the Court still allows observers and the press to attend the hearing.

l The room claimed to have hosted Mr. Thaksin during his treatment at the hospital. Photos courtesy of Dr. Warong Dechgitvigrom FB.

The Directors

The Court began with the former executive of the Hospital (Mor Yai), who at that time directed the whole facility. According to the hospital’s rules and procedures, the director is responsible for approving requests for facilities for patient admission, including the 14th Floor. According to the hospital’s public information, the floor houses the hospital’s premium ward, dubbed “the VIP Floor”.

The Court inquired with him about his acknowledgement of Mr. Thaksin’s transfer and admission to the hospital that night, the preparation and approval of Mr. Thaksin’s admission to a so-called VIP room on the 14th Floor and related rules and procedures, to which the hospital’s executive denied any acknowledgement. It also asked in comparison with other facilities in the hospital, including an emergency ward, ICU, and others.

The Court then asked about the utilisation purposes of the ward at that time, past patients and other inmates who had ever been admitted there, and why the hospital did not admit Mr. Thaksin to its emergency ward or the ICU. As he couldn’t answer these questions right away, the Court instructed him to provide the Court with the lists of past patients and other inmates, as requested, as well as related documents and records, including the missing doctor’s order notes, within seven days.

The Court also questioned him about the hospital’s bills for the room and medicines, some details of which were missing, such as the list of the medicines, to which he denied any acknowledgement, as he was not in charge of the treatment.

The Court also asked him about the reason why he gave press interviews about Mr. Thaksin’s health conditions that seemingly sounded critical. It eventually presented to him his statements that were submitted to the Medical Council of Thailand when it investigated the issue, and the MCT’s decision to suspend him from duty for three months following his role in Mr. Thaksin’s admission at the Hospital. The hospital’s director went through the documents for a while and then nodded in acknowledgement.

The Court then moved on to the second witness, who is the current executive of the Hospital. The Court inquired with him similarly to the first witness. The doctor was also the one who had issued the medical opinion certificates for the first and second hospital stay extensions beyond 30 days and 60 days consecutively.

The Court questioned him why he gave his opinions that suggested the need for surgeries (a finger and then a shoulder) and the continued treatment for Mr. Thaksin, and why he issued the certificates despite the fact that he was not his attending doctor.

It eventually presented to him his statements submitted to the Medical Council of Thailand, which investigated the issue, and the MCT’s decision to suspend him from duty for six months following his role in Mr. Thaksin’s hospital stay extensions at the Hospital. The hospital’s director spent time going through the documents for a while before nodding in acknowledgement.

The attending doctor

The Court then proceeded to the third witness. He is a neurologist at the hospital, like the first and the second witnesses. He was on duty during the night shift at his department that night and was contacted by the hospital’s contact centre for patient transfer and admission. He received Mr. Thaksin’s case despite being informed about his acute symptoms, which rather suggested his heart or lung problems.

The Court inquired with him intensively, spending almost two hours questioning him about the medical treatment and care provided to Mr. Thaksin since the first night. The Court asked in detail how Mr. Thaksin’s condition was when he first encountered him, how he treated the patient, what treatment and medicines he gave to Mr. Thaksin on the first night and whether they were about his reported problems, and whether surgeries on his heart or his neck were ever performed during his stay in the hospital.

The Court then asked his views about Mr. Thaksin’s health conditions; whether they had improved, and whether Mr. Thaksin still needed to stay in the hospital after his treatment and over different treatment periods. The Court questioned whether or not corrections officials ever contacted him to check on Mr. Thaksin’s health conditions, and who actually discharged Mr. Thaksin one day after he was granted parole. 

The attending doctor was also the one who issued a medical opinion certificate for the hospital stay extension beyond 120 days, citing the need for surgery on Mr. Thaksin’s neck to help him relieve neuro disturbances. The Court asked why he had issued the certificate despite the patient’s denial of the treatment in the first place, and whether the surgery was ever performed at the hospital.

The Court also asked whether he knew about the rules and procedures concerning hospital admission and treatment for an inmate in hospital. It also asked him whether he had ever had a thought of the legal aspect and consequences when providing medical treatment to an inmate patient. The doctor turned silent and apparently broke down in tears. He asked for time from the Court to recompose himself before replying that he is just a doctor who treats patients, and never thought that one day he would be in court like this.

After spending nearly two hours questioning him, the Court then adjourned the morning session. The afternoon session resumed with the next three doctors, who spent around 30-40 minutes each responding to the Court’s inquiries.

The cardiac doctor and the orthopaedic surgeons

The fourth witness is an orthopaedic doctor who was involved with the surgery for a tendon rupture on Mr. Thaksin’s right shoulder. He helped the main surgeon in the operating room to treat the injury.

He was also the one who issued a medical opinion certificate for the 120-day hospital stay extension that repeated the attending doctor’s opinion. The Court asked why he issued the certificate, despite the fact that he was not his attending doctor. He looked frustrated and also questioned why the certificates had been issued repeatedly, and whether anybody knew who actually issued which certificates.

After questioning him, the Court then moved on to a cardiac doctor, who examined Mr. Thaksin’s heart condition and diagnosed his related symptoms a few days after he was admitted to the hospital. The Court asked how Mr. Thaksin’s heart condition was and whether he had provided medical treatment or medicines to treat it in the first few days. The Court further asked whether a surgery was performed on his heart afterwards. 

The doctor was also the one who helped assess Mr. Thaksin’s health conditions before receiving the surgeries. The Court asked how he assessed the risks associated with the surgeries and how those surgeries were classified to help justify the patient’s need to prolong his stay at the hospital.

The Court also asked his views about Mr. Thaksin’s health conditions and whether Mr. Thaksin needed to stay in the hospital from the very first few days and over the periods that involved the surgeries.

The Court closed the session with the final witness, who is a senior orthopaedic doctor who performed both surgeries for Mr. Thaksin. The Court asked how he conducted the surgeries, how he treated the patient’s wounds, and how much time it took for the wounds to heal.

In total, the Court spent around five hours questioning the witnesses as some of them had extensive details to inquire about. During the session, some fell into silence, failing to give the answers to the Court or otherwise just nodded in acknowledgement to the facts presented to them by the Court. Others, meanwhile, were apparently frustrated, reacting in different ways—from voice raising to crying, although they tried to compose themself during the inquiry and tried to explain their facts to the Court.

Mr. Thaksin’s opponents, meanwhile, questioned whether Mr. Thaksin had stayed in the hospital for the whole six months, given the information about his illness and health conditions revealed in the hearing. They also claimed that the doctor’s order notes, which were supposed to be issued daily, were not submitted to the court as they could help confirm his daily presence.

The next session of the court hearing, the sixth, will be held next Friday, with the MCT’s representatives being summoned for testimony. Bangkok Tribune is permitted to attend and observe in all sessions, along with some members of the press.

The final hearing, the 7th, is scheduled on July 30.