|
|
Violations of Art. 6 par 1 - Page 4
Alleged violation of Article 6, par. 1
Paragraph 2 of the bill of indictment:
Falsification #1 - The patient Guliko M. was delivered to the Mtskheta regional hospital on 22 September 2005 by an ambulance at 4:15 am and not at 5:00 p.m. as is stated in the bill of indictment. This is proved by testimony of the following witnesses: an emergency doctor, Elza Ch., a therapist of reception department of the Mtskheta hospital, K. B., and a surgeon of this hospital, T. J., as well as by the records of the patient Guliko M's case history. (See the attached Annex A.. - testimony, case history).
Fabrication of the merits of the case
The prosecutor's bill of indictment omits the events that took place in the period between the patient Guliko M's admission to the hospital and her move to the gynecology department. Namely, it does not mention that the patient was delivered to the hospital by an ambulance not only with stomach pains but also with a diagnosis of food poisoning. (See the attached Annex A.. - testimony of Elza Ch.). Furthermore, it is not mentioned that the patient was first examined by the therapist on duty in the reception department, who suspected an acute abdominal infection and called the surgeon on duty, Dr. T. J. (see the attached Annex A.. - testimony of B. and the case history).
Nor is it mentioned that the surgeon on duty, Dr. T. J., after having examined the patient, excluded acute abdominal infection and any necessity of a surgical intervention, that he made a tentative diagnosis of pelvioperitonitis, which he could not have recorded because a case history was not open yet, nor that he advised the therapist to call a gynecologist on duty. (See the attached Annex A.. - testimony of Dr. T. J.). The prosecutor fails to describe all the measures that were undertaken by the first applicant after he had been called for consultation. Namely, after having examined the patient and taking her anamnesis, he immediately called a laboratory assistant and had the patient's blood analyzed, the results of which were not alarming, because every component, including hemoglobin, was normal. Only the leucocytes were somewhat increased and that increase indicated the inflammation. (See the attached Annexes A … - case history, B's testimony, blood tests).
Falsification #2 - First of all, the patient was examined not by both applicants, as reported in the bill of indictment, but only by the first applicant, he being the only person responsible for examining the patient and making a diagnosis. During his duty hours nobody could interfere in his competence, neither the second applicant nor any other physician, unless the first applicant asked for assistance, which was not the case. Anyway, there is not a single bit of evidence that would prove the opposite.
The case materials prove that the second applicant was not able to examine and diagnose the patient, because she was near her patient Shehraza A., providing her with medical care under a contractual agreement, as at the moment of the patient Guliko M's admission to the hospital, so afterward, when the latter was moved the gynecology department. Exactly this is the reason why the second applicant came to the Mtskheta hospital on 22 September 2005 at 04:00 am together with the patient Shehraza A. (see the statements of facts).
The second applicant learned about the patient Guliko M's admission to the hospital by pure accident, when the first applicant sent a nurse to the obstetrics department in order to bring strong antibiotics and when the latter told the second applicant, by the way, that the first applicant needed the antibiotics for her neighbor (see statement of facts)
The second applicant expressed an interest in her neighbor and went down to the gynecology department, where the first applicant was preparing the patient for curettage. That's when the second applicant learned about the patient Guliko M's medical condition, a diagnosis made by the first applicant and that he intended to perform curettage. (See statement of facts). Considering the foregoing the second applicant neither examined nor diagnosed the patient and even if the patient was in an emergency condition at that time had a reasonable excuse for not doing so because Dr. Oboladze was in charge of the patient and was tending to her care.
Falsification #3 - The bill of indictment contains a quotation from the patient Guliko M's diagnosis made by the first applicant and recorded in her case history. The first applicant emphasizes that if there is a quotation of any statement, then it must be fully copied, otherwise it will be not a correct quotation but one's initiative. That's why the first applicant considers that the following statement of the bill of indictment - "a diagnosis was made: "postabortal acute endometritis, pelvioperitonitis" - is false. The point is that, first of all, this diagnosis made by the first applicant was a preliminary one. It is admitted in the medical practice that very often a preliminary diagnosis is different from clinical and final diagnoses. The case history records prove that the first applicant made a preliminary diagnosis and not a final one. Namely, first applicant recorded a diagnosis under a question mark: "postabortal acute endometritis? pelvioperitonitis?"
__________
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
|
