How much does an organ cost?
The patient turned to the doctor to have an abortion. During surgery, the gynecologist damaged her body. The patient was not informed about this and was sent to the ward to wait for an extract. The woman complained of pain and heaviness in the lower abdomen. Another doctor during the detour discovered significant blood loss and, in order to save the woman's life, was forced to remove the uterus.
What is wrong with the doctor?
The doctor who performed the abortion had to correct the damage to the thin body of the uterus (sew the tissues) and warn the patient about the possible risks to her health. He did not do this, which led to the loss of the patient's genital organ. She lost the opportunity to have children, family life was destroyed - her husband left her. Since, according to the Criminal Code, the gravity of this crime is not high, and the time for its consideration by the prosecutor's office was long (almost four years), the time during which it was possible to file a civil claim ended, and the prosecutor's office herself sent documents to the court to initiate criminal proceedings . Councils for the protection of the rights of the patient are provided for by the court and, in the event of non-execution of orders, punishable by judicial punishment.
The court was accompanied by difficulties: the same doctors who conducted forensic examination, in a repeated procedure began to abandon their previous testimony. Therefore, it was necessary to involve other experts (the cost of examination for today is from 2,5 thousand UAH, it is paid by the patient). They recognized all possible advice on protecting the rights of the patient, that the woman suffered severe bodily injuries, and the court estimated her moral damage to 20 thousand hryvnia. Unfortunately, she was not compensated for the material damage, because the patient did not collect the necessary documents for this, for example, checks for the purchase of medicines, travel tickets for a trip to the court. With regard to the issue and advice on protecting the rights of the patient, against whom to file a lawsuit - a medical institution or a doctor, I recommend to all my clients that I choose a medical institution as a defendant. Because the organization is able to allocate funds from its budget or plan a payment for the next year. And from the doctor it is extremely difficult to get money - these payments are usually scanty, and their receipt is very long. On the other hand, the hospital has the right of recourse to such a doctor that he pays this amount to the institution from his salary in installments. But I do not know, not a single medical institution, wherever this right is used.
The Case of the Screw
In the district hospital, after a fracture of the foot, a woman was fitted with a metal construction on her leg, which was supposed to promote the proper fusion of the bone. After the bone is consolidated, the structure is removed from the body. But in the course of the operation, the head of a 7-cm metal screw, which was part of the design, fell off and was not removed from the leg. The patient was not informed about this and was discharged from the hospital as healthy. What tips for protecting the rights of the patient to take in this case?
For better bone growth, the woman was prescribed physical procedures, including using electric current. "For me, as a lawyer, if it's not a joke of doctors, then torture is for sure. After all, all patients are asked to remove even metal jewelry before such a procedure, so that the discharge does not cause pain. A screw in the leg is an essential piece of metal, an excellent conductor of electricity. Reusable complaints of pain did not excite physicians, and after X-ray radiography she was shown a picture without the slightest trace of an alien body in the leg. There was complete disinformation and a blatant lie of doctors.
Unable to withstand a three-month physical pain, the patient turned to another hospital for examination. The institution was across the road. There she was shocked by the news that there was a metal screw in her leg, and they recommended surgery. A lawsuit was filed, and the woman won the case, as lawyers proved that the doctors did not inform about the real state of her health, what caused her material and moral damage.
The declaration of human rights says that a person has the right to get rid of physical suffering if such help can be provided. The patient received 10 thousand hryvnia moral and 200 hryvnia material compensation. The last amount is a charitable contribution, which the woman paid as a voluntary-compulsory fee before the operation. It's no secret that many in the hospital are asked to contribute a certain amount to the cashier as a charity. But very few people know that it can be taken back through the court. The Constitutional Court of Ukraine makes it clear that the money contributed by the patient to the medical institution's cash desk as a charitable contribution directly before, during or immediately after medical intervention can be recognized by the court as compulsory payment of medical services - if the patient officially declares it.
Any whim
In Kiev city hospital in the paid department of dentistry, the patient came to an expensive procedure - implantation of teeth. He was examined, his teeth were implanted. And after a while there was a rejection and partial destruction of the jaw bone. The patient immediately sued the court. What tips for protecting the rights of the patient advise?
The examination found that the doctor had reasons to deny the patient medical intervention - significant contraindications to the procedure of implantation. It turns out that even before the moment of prosthetics, the man was diagnosed with "periodontal disease" plus several concomitant bone diseases. This made implantation impossible, because it required a drilling procedure, which entailed additional destruction of the diseased bone. This information the doctors deliberately concealed from the patient, as they dreamed of a generous payment and did not warn him about possible health risks.
The first court was lost, during the next lawyers proved that the court's decision was incorrect, because the patient was denied the right to medical examination. After all, only the forensic expert has the authority to determine whether the procedures have been properly assigned and to establish a cause-effect relationship between the fact of medical intervention and the damage to the body. During the second review, a forensic medical examination was carried out, as well as a handwriting forensic, as the victim had a suspicion of substituting a medical card for doctors. The one in which post factum was recorded that the patient was notified of possible health risks was declared invalid.
Forensic medical examination concluded that the patient for health reasons should not have undergone this procedure, or he had to take written confirmation that he clearly understands the possible risks of advice on protecting the rights of the patient. Compensation to the patient was about 40 thousand hryvnia.