Former Secretary of State António Lacerda Sales criticizes the General Health Inspectorate for having given less value to his word than to that of his personal secretary, who contacted Santa Maria Hospital to schedule the twins’ appointment.
“Why does the inspectorate give more credibility to the testimony of the personal secretary than to that of the Secretary of State for Health?” asks António Lacerda Sales, in the contradictory statement that is part of the report by the Inspectorate General for Health Activities (IGAS) on the case of the twins treated in Santa Maria.
In its inspection of the case, the IGAS concluded that access to neuropediatric consultations for the twins who received a drug worth millions of euros in Santa Maria was illegal.
“The legal requirements for the two children’s access to a neuropediatric consultation were not met”, since the appointment – made through the Secretary of State for Health – did not comply with the ordinance that regulates users’ access to the National Health Service (SNS), says the IGAS.
Lacerda Sales disputes several points in the document and says that, contrary to what his personal secretary says, he never asked for an appointment.
She recalls that her personal secretary had worked at the Centro Hospitalar Universitário Lisboa Norte (CHULN) – which belonged to the Hospital de Santa Maria – and could therefore already have been aware of the twins’ case, whose requests for help began in September 2019.
In the report, IGAS states that the former Secretary of State became aware of the case of the twin children after a meeting on November 7, 2019, with Nuno Rebelo de Sousa (son of the President of the Republic), in which he was asked to collaborate in obtaining treatment with the drug Zolgensma.
In the document, to which Lusa has had access, IGAS writes that, on a date yet to be determined, “but situated between November 7 and 20, 2019”, the former secretary of state asked his then personal secretary to contact Nuno Rebelo de Sousa by telephone, who wanted an appointment for two children at the Hospital de Santa Maria, having given him the telephone number for that purpose, information that Sales denies.
Following this contact – says the IGAS – the personal secretary “obtained information, which she sent to CHULN, E.P.E. in accordance with the guidelines of the SES [Secretary of State for Health], regarding the identity of the children, their date of birth, diagnosis and the dates on which the parents could be present at the said hospital”.
“Although the then SES denies his involvement in obtaining information about the twins from Dr. Nuno Rebelo de Sousa and subsequently referring them to CHULN, E.P.E., for an appointment, it is not clear how his personal secretary, given her degree of autonomy, could have been aware of the case of the two twin children and their personal information, and communicated with CHULN, E.P.E., other than through the aforementioned means and contacts,” adds IGAS.
Regarding this contact between his personal secretary and Santa Maria, Sales highlights the fact that the email does not say ‘in CC’ (with knowledge) and asks: “Why is there no indication in the email that it was sent at the request of the SES? Wouldn’t that be prudent, considering that the then secretary had only been there for a little over 15 days?”
Sales even addresses the way the personal secretary addresses the director of the pediatrics department (“Dear Prof. Isabel Lopes” and “Once again thank you very much for your precious help”), asking: “How intimate are you? Have you met before?”.
At the end of the contradictory, Sales asks: “Why doesn’t the draft report, considering the various contacts prior to the email of November 20, 2019, consider another hypothesis that would be decisive for scheduling the appointments? By the Civil House or other colleagues or other health institutions?”
