A recent article has infested the medical community.

A recent article has infested the medical community.

This is a case where my boyfriend died of head injuries while pushing. Epidural bleeding occurred during the accident, and an anesthesiologist attempted to insert a central venous tube while preparing for cerebral hemorrhage surgery, but the patient died due to an accident in which a needle penetrated an artery during the procedure.

In the case, both the first and second trials acknowledged the responsibility of the medical staff. As the ruling was published, the medical community is protesting as if it were natural.

I recently wrote an article about a central venous tube procedure, and unfortunately, the procedure became an issue. It's a case of Chonnam National University Hospital, so it's burdensome to say something. So I'm revealing it in advance. I first encountered this case as an article. I have no idea. (I'm originally not very interested in others.)

*

In fact, I haven't seen a single doctor who doesn't get angry after reading the article. It's understandable.

This is because the central venous procedure is so close to essential medical care that empathy is inevitably severe. Any doctor who does essential medical care can't help but think, "I can also be punished through a similar path." It is a close and common procedure, and at the same time, it is a procedure that often involves large and small accidents.

*

However, the content of the article is about the judgment, not the case. In other words, I did not cover or investigate the case. Even the judgment was organized into just a few lines. Therefore, the information we can take from the article is extremely limited. (When I searched for the case, I found a few more articles, but there is no more information to be saved because they are all copied.)

This is the only information we can get.

[The 1st and 2nd trials acknowledged the responsibility of the medical doctor and the hospital for damages, judging that "there is a possibility of touching the artery during the central venous tube insertion process, but it is rare that the artery penetrates and causes massive bleeding."]

The former and the latter are not logically connected. If massive bleeding due to arterial penetration is rare, it means that there is no problem even if a penetration injury is caused by negligence. In fact, it is difficult to find a mass bleeding that leads to death to the degree of arterial penetration.

Therefore, there must be something missing between the two sentences. I don't know if the reporter missed that part or if he didn't clearly specify it in the ruling. (Although there is a high possibility of the former.) Anyway, there is no way that the process has not been carefully reviewed in the process of a tough lawsuit that extends to the second trial.

It's rare that the artery penetrates and causes massive bleeding, and I think it was believed that a rare event called massive bleeding occurred before and after the procedure, which led to death. And I evaluated that part as negligence, not force majeure. My guess is.

If so, what the process is a key issue. We need to know that so we can evaluate whether the ruling is excessive or appropriate.

There is no information at all, so I can't even guess.

*

There is some additional unique information that can be obtained.

[In particular, the hospital, the doctor, and the perpetrator were jointly responsible for illegal activities, but in the case of epidural bleeding, more than 99% of the treatment could be successful during surgery, so the hospital's responsibility is heavier]

The success rate of epidural hemorrhage was evaluated very highly. The probability depends on the patient's condition and the degree of hemorrhage. (The 99% figure seems too high.)

Anyway, I don't think there would have been an autopsy in this case. I think the cause of death was mass bleeding, not epidural bleeding. Otherwise, whether the direct cause of death certificate was written as mass bleeding, not epidural bleeding. Of course, this is also presumed.

Since there is no information on this part, there is no way to evaluate the suitability of the judgment.

*

I do not have the ability to judge the right or wrong of a judgment with such extremely limited information.

*

I basically respect the ruling. I would be very angry if I cut my medical practice as a doctor for a moment and judged it wrong.

Likewise, I don't think the judge's judgment should be evaluated only with fragmentary information with strong context.

As much as I want to be respected in healthcare, I think other professionals should respect that unique area as well. I usually trust professionals.

*

The medical community immediately protested and issued a statement. Among them, the following evaluations were particularly poor in the frequency index.

"The medical staff who did their best to treat the victims were treated as the same criminals as the perpetrators of dating violence."

"The medical community reacted furiously, saying they were on the same line with criminals."

Being negligent and responsible and being treated as a criminal are completely different categories. The interpretation is excessive.

*

If you think this is an unreasonable judgment, isn't it the first to seek the full text of the judgment or to get a detailed grasp of the case? I am also curious about what evidence and arguments were dealt with through the first and second trials. If such information is added, my mind could change. It would be good for the medical association to come forward.

They criticize the ruling with limited information. Therefore, responding in a way that a severely ill patient will no longer receive it is not helpful to anyone in this society, the medical community itself.

Rather than the ruling itself, our attitude in digesting the ruling may be destroying essential medical care.

*

Anyway, it's a judgment against the medical community. Still, it's trying to save people, but I hope you'll be generous. Even more so because I'm a colleague at the hospital where I work. Yes, I think so. But that's just my wish.

However, I don't think we should denigrate the judgment without grounds.

You're always criticized for being a T, so even if you don't like it, I hope you do...