Statement of facts - Part 2 of 4

About 05:45 a.m., after having administered an intravenous anesthetic, the first applicant prepared for the dilation and curettage. He asked for Hegar pins and the right sized spoon, but the latter was found to have been locked up for unknown reasons by Dr. Tina Sv., the head of gynecology department, and she had the only key. This irritated the first applicant. On the instructions of the second applicant a small diagnostic spoon was obatined and she helped the first applicant perform the curettage. Then the first applicant finished this manipulation. A little odorous mass was removed as a result of the curettage. The first applicant, being the gynecologist on duty and the physician in charge of the case at that time, designed a further action plan, deciding to give the patient an antibiotic and detoxication therapy on the patient and to keep her under clinical observation. Following the dilation and curettage the patient woke up and her condition was stable.

The second applicant left the manipulation room and apologized to the patient's relatives because she had to attend to her patient, Shehraza A., who was ready to deliver in the obstetrics department. She added that she had come to the hospital that morning because of Shehraza A., whom she was responsible for under a private contractual agreement. Then she returned to the obstetrics department.

On the instructions of the first applicant, the patient was then moved to the ward, where she received the prescribed treatment according to the plan that the first applicant had designed for her (see the attached Annex A.. - case history).

At 07:00 a.m. the first applicant ordered a second blood test of the patient. This blood test showed almost the same results as the blood test that was made when the patient was admitted to the hospital, at 04:15 a.m. (see the attached Annex A.. - blood test). Consequently, the patient continued to receive the prescribed treatment and be kept under intensive clinical observation.

Before his duty was over at 10:00 a.m., the first applicant examined the patient again. This examination took place at 09:30 a.m. Her general state was the same and he made an appropriate record of this in the patient's case history (see the attached Annex A..).

At 09:45 a.m. the first applicant informed Dr. Tina Sv., the manager of the gynecology department, who had come to the hospital that morning in order to fulfill her duties, about the patient's condition and handed the patient over to her. At 10:00 a.m. the first applicant joined the morning conference of physicians. The conference was conducted by the second applicant, the hospital's deputy-director for treatment. The second applicant asked about the patient's condition. The first applicant reported that the patient's condition was was serious, but stable condition with medium import (reduced lethal risk, but requiring frequent observation); her blood pressure was stable and she had received the relevant treatment. This information was confirmed by Dr. M. T., the specialist in resuscitation on duty. The first applicant also reported that because his duty was over he had turned the patient over to Dr. Tina Sv., the manager of the gynecology department, who from that time on was responsible for the patient's further examination and treatment. Dr. Tina Sv. did not attend this conference.

About 10:15 a.m. in spite of the fact that the first applicant's working hours were over, he again went up to Dr. Sv's office and talked to her about the patient's condition. Then they went together to the patient and took her pulse. The patient was able to cooperate; she gave slow but adequate answers to the questions.

Several minutes later the patient's blood pressure dropped. From this point on, i.e., from 10:25 a.m., the patient's condition worsened. When he heard about this, the first applicant showed an interest in the patient's condition and in spite of fact that his duty and working hours were over and he was no longer responsible for the patient's care, stayed at the hospital with his only desire being somehow to help the patient. As for Dr. Tina Sv., she was unable to make a final diagnosis and effectively left the first applicant's preliminary diagnosis in place.

Dr. Tina Sv. called Dr. S. M., the manager of the resuscitation department and, a little later, the second applicant. The second applicant came up at about 10:50 a.m. Dr. Tina Sv. told her that she and the manager of the resuscitation department had decided to move the patient to the resuscitation department. Dr. Tina Sv. called an expert in ultrasound examination.

The patient underwent the first ultrasound examination, which an expert in resuscitation and the first applicant attended, at 11:00 a.m. This examination revealed no liquid in the abdomen. However, because the patient's urinary bladder was empty, it was decided to perform a second ultrasound examination.

Because the patient's condition was growing worse, the first applicant proposed to Dr. Tina Sv. that the she be moved to the operating room, but he did not get a concrete answer from Dr. Tina Sv.. He then approached Dr. M. M., his direct chief, and told him that the patient's condition had become serious and since Dr. M. M. was usually responsible for conducting operations, he should get involved in this case. Dr. M. M. answered that if the patient had sepsis she should be moved not to the operating room but to the sepsis center (see the attached Annex A..).

At about 12:30 p.m. the first applicant again went to the resuscitation department and visited the patient. He was told that the second ultrasound examination had not yet taken place because they were waiting for the urinary bladder to fill up. In order to accelerate this process he told a nurse to connect a catheter to the urinary bladder and to fill it up with any solution.

Meanwhile, about 12:00 noon the second applicant had visited the patient and met some of her relatives there as well. They informed her that the patient's brother and husband had left to get some blood. The second applicant offered them her help in organizing a blood transfusion, although the manager of resuscitation department noted that there was no necessity for a transfusion at that time. The second applicant suggested that they call an emergency center, which would transport the patient in an ambulance. Dr. Me. said that this was not necessary because the patient's condition was stable. Instead he asked that the second applicant, being a representative of the hospital administration, call a sepsis specialist. The second applicant called the emergency center and learned the sepsis specialist's name, Dr. L. M., and his telephone number.

Later the second applicant telephoned Dr. L. M., the sepsis specialist. He asked about the ultrasound examination results and was informed that they were waiting for the second ultrasound examination. Because Dr. M. M. was with a patient in a critical condition, they agreed to examine the patient at 16:00 p.m..

The second applicant complained to Dr. Tina Sv., the physician then in charge of the patient's case and manager of gynecology department, about the delay in the performance of the second ultrasound examination, and added that in case of such delay they could make the "Douglas puncture" (puncture of abdominal cavity). Dr. Tina Sv., for her part, expressed discontent with this idea. Then the second applicant went to the operating room because she had to help perform the cesarean section of her newly admitted maternity patient.

At 12:50 p.m. the second ultrasound examination of the patient's uterus and ovaries was performed. This examination showed that there was a lot of free liquid (although there is no record anywhere identifying what kind of liquid it was) in the patient's abdomen and was immediately reported to Dr. Tina Sv., who attended this examination. The first applicant was also there. The examination results were recorded at 01:00 p.m. (see the attached Annex A..).

As the patient's doctor in charge after 10:00 a.m., Dr. Tina Sv., the manager of gynecology department, should immediately have begun the operation, the necessity for which became evident at 12:50 p.m. as a result of the second ultrasound examination. At that time the patient was in a very serious condition and surgical intervention was her only chance to survive. Although Dr. Tina Sv. ordered a surgical nurse to prepare an operating room, Dr. Tina Sv. did not move the patient to the operating room until 3:00 p.m. because she was waiting for Dr. M. M., the manager of obstetrics department, to assist her during operation. From 1:00 p.m. until 2:20 p.m. Dr. M. M. and the second applicant were conducting the cesarean section of the second applicant's maternity patient. (See the attached Annex A.. - letter of director).

As soon as the second ultrasound examination was made, the first applicant asked Dr. Tina Sv. to allow him to conduct an operation even though the first applicant had no legal obligation toward the patient because his duty was over at 10:00 a.m. and at that time he had transferred responsibility for the patient to Dr. Tina Sv. She refused to permit the first applicant to conduct such an operation.

Following this, the first applicant left the resuscitation department and went up to the surgical department, where an operation on a patient with a chest wound was about to start. At about 3:00 p.m. the first applicant intended to go home, but before he left he went to the resuscitation department to see the patient, where he learned that she was had not yet been operated on and that she had just been moved to the operating room. When he entered the operating room the anesthetist, Dr. I. T., told the first applicant that the patient's pulse could not be taken. At 3:20 p.m., before the operation could start, the patient went into cardiac arrest. Efforts to resuscitate the patient were futile and the patient was pronounced dead at 3:50 p.m.

At that time the second applicant was in the obstetrics department with a patient. While she was examining this patient she was told to come to the gynecology operating room immediately. When she went there she found that the patient, Guliko M., was dead. Because Guliko M. was the second applicant's neighbor, Dr. Tina Sv. asked the second applicant to inform her family members of the patient's death.

That is how the both applicants found themselves in the operating room. Guliko M's family members were informed about her death first by the first applicant and then by the second applicant. Other persons who were in the operating room, namely, Dr. Tina Sv., the manager of gynaecology department, Dr. M. M., the manager of obstetrics department, Dr. I. T., the anaesthetist, and Dr. Me., the manager of the resuscitation department, left the operating room without ever informing the patient's family members about what had happened.

__________

prior page next page

08.11.2007:
Ausnahmezustand in Georgien und vorgezogene Präsidentschaftswahlen [weiter]

17.09.2007:
Rechtsanwaltskammern gegen Gesetzentwurf zur Telekommu-
nikationsüberwachung [weiter]

07.07.2007:
Schäuble fordert "Internierung", Internet- und Handyverbot für "Gefährder" [weiter]

27.05.2007:
BVerfG: Nichteheliche Kinder dürfen beim Betreuungsunterhalt nicht benachteiligt werden [weiter]

22.05.2007:
Sammelklage gegen Vorratsdatenspeicherung [weiter]

22.05.2007:
Grundrechte-Report 2007 erschienen [weiter]

22.05.2007:
Internationale Liga für Menschenrechte fordert sofortige Beendigung des Grundrechte-Ausverkaufs [weiter]

Informationen älteren Datums finden Sie im Newsarchiv

HOME | WORLD JURIST ASSOC. | HUMAN RIGHTS | IMPRESSUM | CREDITS / DANKSAGUNG