2023-10-28 09:31:50
A doctor who was on duty at the Health Care Point (PAS) on Juan Llorens Street in Valencia in September 2019 faces a year and a half of disqualification and a fine of 4,500 euros accused of refusing to go to a patient’s home, who lived right in front of the health center, to assist him despite the requests of one of the patient’s children because he was having seizures. The man, who had just had heart surgery, ended up dying.
However, the defendant, in her statement in the trial that has been held since last Thursday with a popular jury in the Valencia Court, denied having committed a crime of omission of help due to denial of health care: “I complied with the protocols, I cannot leave “If the CICU doesn’t activate me.”
The events occurred, according to the provisional account of the public ministry, in the early hours of September 22, 2019, when the 65-year-old patient, who had undergone heart surgery days before, began to worsen. At 1:30 a.m. he began to sweat, have convulsions and uncontrolled movements of his right arm.
The children alerted 1:53 to 112 and at 1:58 they called once more warning that he had become unconscious and had gone into cardiorespiratory arrest. While they were waiting for the health services to arrive, one of her three children crossed to the medical center, which was just opposite, regarding 50 metrosto request urgent assistance and reiterated the request when his father’s situation worsened.
However, the prosecutor points out that the doctor, who at that time was sleeping in one of the center’s rooms, refused to leave the center to assist the patient even though she was in charge of the external service guard that night – perform home care – and that he did not receive any attention that night.
The man finally died at 2:42 hours from cardiorespiratory failure. However, non-attendance had no consequence in the patient’s death, which was caused by cardiac tamponade, a fatal pathology of necessity.
Despite this, the public ministry considers that it is “a serious behavior of the doctor on guard because, although he might not save him, he might help and improve the situation of someone who is dying a few meters away. “It is repugnant to conscience, attentive to the basic principles of solidarity and harms the obligation of doctors to care for the sick,” she asserted.
Likewise, he stressed that “it is not true” that the regulations, in cases of attending to external guards, prohibit compliance with the legal obligation to assist a patient unless it is vital assistance right at the doors of the center as the defense alleges. . «They begged for help and nothing was done.», he reproached. Likewise, the private prosecution pointed out that the family “only wants justice to be done for the hard times they had to witness.”
On the other hand, the defense points out that the accused “cannot at all” be responsible for a crime of omission of the duty to provide assistance because her client acted with the firm conviction that the Cicu had already mobilized the necessary resources and points out that whoever should be seated In the dock is the Administration, which “has not given a single euro nor has it apologized.” «If the Administration did not comply, let the poorest person pay the price.“, kept.
“Waiting to be activated”
In that sense, the accused reported that the guard notified her that a person was at the center saying that a family member was ill and lived nearby. She asked him if they had called 112. and he waited for them to notify him through TETRA – the emergency radio in which they transmit a message with the basic information of the patient, status and address to which they should go.
Thus, he explained that the internal rules and protocol establish “in writing” that “she can only leave the center if she is activated by the CICU to avoid duplication in care or leaving an emergency unattended and that emergencies can only be attended to at the center’s door. “Why would I treat a patient who is 50 meters away and not one who is 500 meters away?” She has pointed out and pointed out: “If I had left the job I would be sitting on the bench now for having left,” she argued.
Likewise, he justified that he did not go out to talk to the family member because the guard only told him that he felt “bad” – and he trusts his colleagues without wanting to go into assessing their professional training to evaluate the cases -, he thought that he had already notified 112 and that he also did not go out to check if the ambulance had arrived because they told him that he lived “nearby, not opposite.” “If the rule hasn’t changed, he would do it once more,” he concluded.
1698494573
#disqualify #doctor #caring #patient #ended #dying