[ad_1]
Flavia Groşan’s public statements caused problems in the Oradea hospitals. Some patients, in serious condition, refuse oxygen therapy because the doctor said it would cause brain edema. Attorney Adrian Cuculis, exclusively for DCNews, spoke about the situation in which he could respond to the law.
The “Groşan phenomenon” is growing. Patients infected with the Sars-CoV-2 virus who arrive at the hospital in serious condition, with serious respiratory problems, refuse the administration of additional oxygen, says the head of UPU-SMURD Bihor, Dr. Hadrian Borcea, according to eBihoreanul.ro. He specified that this phenomenon began to appear after the media coverage of the case of Dr. Flavia Groşan. Some doctors have great difficulty convincing people to get extra oxygen, even if they are barely breathing. Dr. Hadrian Borcea characterized the situation generated by the “Groşan phenomenon” as “sad, just sad”, because “people in serious condition without medical knowledge are taught to refuse medical help, convinced that it hurts.”
In this context, can Flavia Groșan be criminally responsible? Attorney Adrian Cuculis made the following clarifications for DCNews:
“The discussion is wide and difficult. When they called her to the College of Physicians, they were all inflamed. They had to see how, in the end, the plan that she proposed might or might not sell itself. Let’s start with what medical treatment really entails. First, requires the patient to give their consent. If, based on criteria that the patient considers beneficial to him, he clearly says that he does not want to be given oxygen, and then says that he ends up in cardiopulmonary arrest, it could be a liability, but not necessarily criminal .
On the other hand, a patient who can no longer respond on his own, suppose he enters cardiopulmonary arrest, is intubated without his will, because the doctor has the opportunity to intervene and intubate him, from this point of view, not We can speak of a person not dying because they were not given oxygen, because in any case it is put on them if they lose consciousness and go into cardiorespiratory arrest ”.
“If the obvious conclusion were a medical, scientific document, by which it would be concluded that she knew very clearly that, by not applying the classical method, with oxygen, the result could be the death of the patient, then she could certainly be responsible, on the one hand, of transmitting false information, but perhaps also of homicide. Attention: to be able to speak of wrongful death, a doctor should have administered a treatment scheme that would have taken his colleague and killed him through fault, without knowing it. ” explained the lawyer.
“If a certain patient refuses treatment based on his own conviction and says he does not want oxygen, we cannot find a criminal offense,” the attorney said.
The situation changes in the case of patients treated directly by the doctor
“So, yes, we are clearly talking about an area of malpractice that also has a criminal connotation, for wrongful death. The area of negligence for breach of a protocol agreed at the national and perhaps international level, an intellectual civil liability for the payment of damages ”, explained Adrian Cuculis.
[ad_2]
