SES: We are concerned about sexual assault

img
DİYARBAKIR - SES Amed Branch stated that they are concerned that an administrative investigation has not yet been initiated regarding the sexual assault of a child by Ahmet Beydağ, who is in charge of the Emergency Department at Bismil State Hospital.
 
Health and Social Service Workers' Union (SES) Amed(Diyarbakır) Branch published a written statement about Ahmet Beydağ (41), who was working as the Head of the Emergency Department at Bismil State Hospital, sexually assaulting a 16-year-old boy who was detained in the emergency department of the hospital.
 
'WE ARE CONCERNED'
 
The statement stated that the sexual assault incident should be investigated immediately and the best interests of the sexually assaulted child should be taken into consideration, and the following was stated: The claims that he has the influence that he can make cause concerns about the fact that the incident is wanted to be covered up. For this reason, an administrative investigation should be initiated as soon as possible and the perpetrator should be suspended in terms of the authority of the investigation. Because the perpetrator is the responsible nurse of the unit where the incident allegedly took place. Therefore, it should be considered that there may be a possibility of obscuring the evidence. In addition, since the place where the act is alleged to have taken place is a public service area, public conscience and trust are damaged. Whether an administrative investigation has been launched against the person or not, and whether he has been on annual leave, needs to be explained; therefore, the investigation should be conducted and concluded in a transparent and fast manner.
 
Following the explanation, the following questions were asked to the relevant institutions at the end of the statement: “Has a referral been made to the Child Monitoring Center, which was established for the prevention of child abuse and the best interests of the child in accordance with the Child Protection Law No. 5395? Were the camera records of the crime scene duly taken?