|
|
Violations of Art. 6 par 1 - Page 5
Alleged violation of Article 6, par. 1
Fabrication of facts - The bill of indictment states correctly that both applicants participated in the patient's curettage, but the investigator neglects to mention a reason why the second applicant was involved in this manipulation (see the attached Annex A..).
The purpose of the investigator's such approach was, first of all, to speak as if the second applicant was took on the responsibility for the patient's treatment emergency and, secondly, to emphasize that as a result of curettage both applicants were responsible for the patient's death on 22 September 2005 at 03:45 p.m..
Though, the case materials, namely, the testimony of all the witnesses and specialists given during pretrial investigation and the hearing proved that there was no causal connection between the curettage and the lethal result (see the attached Annex A..).
Paragraph 3 of the bill of indictment:
Fabrication of facts - First of all, the second applicant was not responsible at all to provide any kind of treatment to the patient Guliko M, nothing said about differential treatment for two reasons: first of all, the second applicant came to the patient and her family members being their neighbor (see the attached Annex A..) and, secondly, what is the most important, at that moment the first applicant was responsible for the patient Guliko M and without his request the second applicant could not interfere in his competence.
As for the first applicant, referring to the investigator's statement as if he "did not make differential diagnosis regarding abdominal pregnancy", is a total lie, primitively said. First of all, if investigator Levan Ga. was so familiar with gynecology, then he should definitely know that curettage and antibiotic infusion therapy are also types of differential treatment aiming at making differential diagnosis. Any expert will confirm that if a final diagnosis is not made yet and patient is not in critical condition, no operation is conducted immediately after patient's admission to the hospital, especially when a surgeon excludes categorically any acute abdomen at that stage.
The first applicant does not dispute that perhaps a diagnosis that he made at that stage was not perfect and exhaustive, but at the same time, he considers that it could not be so, because this was only a preliminary diagnosis, which he indicated with two question marks. Accordingly, the first applicant was providing medical care whether or not the patient was at this point in an emergency condition.
Paragraph 4 of the bill of indictment:
Fabrication of facts - the investigator passes from 5:50 a.m. to 10:25 a.m. as if the first applicant was not even at the hospital in the period between. Thus, the investigator, in contradiction to the case materials, give the impression that the first applicant was not providing care to the patient during his duty hours from 5:50 a.m. to their conclusion at 10:00 a.m., which was not the case.
Thus, this part of the bill of indictment intentionally omits facts demonstrating the proper accomplishment of his obligations by the first applicant. Namely, in the bill of indictment it is not mentioned that the first applicant did not leave the patient Guliko M even for a minute. He has designed treatment tactics, according to which he conducted her clinical observation that was duly recorded in the case history. The bill of indictment does not contain any statement about the fact that at 07:00 a.m., i.e., one hour after the curettage, he ordered a second blood test, which gave almost the same results like those received at the patient's admission to the hospital. As for the first blood test, every component was normal, except of leucocytes. In the bill of indictment neither is it mentioned that the first applicant, half-an-hour earlier before having terminated his duty, i.e., at 09:30 a.m. examined the patient and evaluated her condition again as of a mean gravity and stable. These facts show that the first appellant was providing medical care to the patient at this time.
Most importantly, the prosecutor failed to mention in the bill of indictment the most essential facts. Namely, first of all, at 9:45 a.m. the first applicant handed the patient over to manager of gynecology department Dr. Tina Sv., because his duty was over. Thus, he observed the hospital's internal order and arranged for the patient to continue to be provided with medical care, the failure to do which he was also accused by the prosecutors' office and then declared guilty by the court. Dr. Tina Sv. became responsible for providing all aspects of the the patient's medical care, including diagnosis and treatment as soon as she received her from the first applicant. That is, once the first applicant turned over responsibility for the patient's treatment to Dr. Tina Sv., he had a reasonable excuse for not providing any further emergency medical treatment for the patient, and therefore cannot be guilty of violating the emergency medical care statute after that time.
Secondly, after having handed the patient over to Dr. Tina Sv., the first applicant joined the morning conference at 10:00 a.m., which as usual, was conducted by the second applicant being the hospital's deputy-director for treatment. When the second applicant asked about the patient Guliko M's medical condition, the first applicant reported the examination results provided before his duty was over and mentioned that her state remained of average seriousness, stable, that was confirmed by anesthetist on duty M.T. Then the first applicant added that he had already handed the patient over to manager of gynecology department Tina Sv..
In addition, the above facts are very important for proving the first applicant's innocence, because during the first applicant's duty the patient's state did not worsen; she was not in critical condition and, consequently, the patient underwent clinical observation and treatment pursuant to the preliminary diagnosis.
These episodes demonstrate how the prosecutors' office tries to show the first applicant in negative light and this is astonishing. But much more astonishing is what is written in further paragraphs of the bill of indictment.
__________
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
|
