They operated on a patient on a testicle without first subjecting him to diagnostic tests, but above all without taking the seminal fluid which would have subsequently allowed him to make important choices given that due to that operation the man was later diagnosed with azoospermia , i.e. infertility. After having been compensated by the ASL in civil proceedings, the jurisdictional section of the Court of Auditors has now intervened and just the other day condemned the former head of surgery of the Sant’Omero MM hospital to compensate him in turn for over 36 thousand euros to the Teramo healthcare company for the fiscal damage caused by the consequences of his incorrect professional conduct. However, the then assistant surgeon PG, also now retired, was acquitted by the accounting judges (president Mario Nispi Landi, drafter Stefano Grossi).
Giuseppe Santoleri kills himself in prison in Teramo, he had been convicted of the murder of his ex-wife Renata Raposelli
The story
This investigation began with the sending of documents to the Court of Auditors by the Local Health Authority itself for an alleged fiscal damage to the healthcare company at the end of the civil action for compensation which recognized the damage suffered by the patient «a cause of a harmful event attributable to the seriously harmful conduct of the doctors on duty (at the time of the events, DNR) at the Val Vibrata hospital in Sant’Omero”. An initial sum then reduced on appeal where the judges ascertained the non-existence of any responsibility of the doctors deriving from the first operation and confirmed the medical responsibility of the two doctors for the consequences of the second surgical operation. This is because at the time the patient underwent two operations seven days apart from each other, but only in the second team was there also PG as assistant surgeon to the head physician and in this last operation the ‘”removal of the right spermatic cord: abdominal lymphadenectomy extended from the venerenal veins to the entire aorto-caval tissue and the right renal lodge”.
As also emerged in the judgment before the Court of Auditors: «The grossly negligent behavior of Doctor MM is not exclusively attributable to the choice of the type of healthcare operation to be carried out, but also to numerous other shortcomings highlighted in the civil judgment and taken up by the accounting prosecutor’s office such as the failure to inform the patient of the operation, the insufficient instrumental diagnosis, the delay in the necessary oncological examination and the failure to cryopreserve the spermatozoa”. All tasks that fell to the head doctor and no other doctor in the team, including PG who for this very reason was acquitted in the accounting office.
«The organizational practice provides that the assistant surgeon is chosen from time to time based on the availability of all the doctors present in the operating unit who possess the necessary specialization – highlight the accounting judges -, without the assignment having had any precedent contact with the patient or has participated and contributed to the diagnosis and the choice of the type of intervention to be carried out”.
© ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
Read the full article at
The messenger
