Dragan Stevanović, the deceased's husband, filed a complaint against Prime Minister Đur Macut and a group of doctors, because they did not have her written consent for the risky intervention she was exposed to - which they were obliged to do by law, writes KRIK. The case reached the Constitutional Court, which has not made a decision for five years and stated at the session in March this year that it needs more time due to "additional considerations". added to the text.
When it is Đuro Macut In 2019, he became the head of the Department of Endocrinology Clinic, one of the things he introduced, according to his colleague for KRIK, was that doctors must provide written consent from patients for the interventions that are performed. It is a document in which the patient is clearly aware of all possible complications of the treatment and agrees to it with his signature. The Law on Patients' Rights also states that it is "necessary" for doctors to provide "written consent" for more serious interventions. "Without the patient's consent, no medical measure may be taken on him," the law stipulates.
"However, after Danijela Stevanović, who was being treated for a rare type of tumor at Mazut's department, died, her husband collected all the medical documentation - and in it he did not find Danijela's consent to the risky intervention to which she was subjected," KRIK writes.
Because of this, one month after her death, in May 2019, Dragan Stevanović filed a criminal complaint with the First Basic Prosecutor's Office in Belgrade, but also initiated civil proceedings. He filed a criminal complaint against Macut and four other doctors who treated his wife at the Clinical Center of Serbia, KRIK reveals.
Procedure
During the procedure, Macut and the doctors claimed that they did everything in accordance with the law, the text adds. Although there was no written consent, they stated that they orally instructed the patient about all the complications that may occur during the treatment. Macut also claimed that it was enough that there was a patient's signature on another document - the medical history.
Matsut's co-worker at the time, however, gave a different statement in one of the proceedings - claiming that the patient's signature on the medical history did not refer to the therapy, but was only her consent to be allowed to go home for the weekend. She mentioned to KRIK that it was Macut that introduced the rule of mandatory written consent in their department.
The experts interviewed by KRIK journalists also said that the signature on the medical history cannot be counted as the patient's written consent for the intervention.
Dismissal of criminal charges
Prosecutor Jovana Dmitrović, however, rejected the criminal complaint in March 2020. Stevanović sent an objection to the Higher Prosecutor's Office, which rejected it the same year, and then turned to the Constitutional Court, which has not yet made a decision in this process.
"I can write an emergency, although they often state that they have a backlog of cases, but five years of waiting is not normal. I want to get an answer. After the decision of the Constitutional Court, there is room for further progress, I can also appeal to the court in Strasbourg," the husband of the deceased patient told the research portal.
World expert in the treatment of skin cancer and surgeon, Dr. Marco Lens, tells KRIK that the patient's signature is mandatory when interventions are performed.
"The patient must give his consent for any type of intervention. If it is a question of any type of intervention in that informed consent, there must be an explanation of the procedure in question, what are the benefits of that procedure, benefits, but also the risks that the procedure carries," said Lance.
Source: The Cry
