ECHR asserts Principles on Human Rights for the Protection of patients' Health and Life in Hospitals

*Strasbourg/- In a series of 3 Judgements published in a row Today, concerning Human Rights related to Health and even Life, ECHR asserted Principles guiding Medical services' Responsibilities in various delicate and complex cases of patients' Deaths, which may help to judge also several other, even more lenient cases :

- A 1st important point was that the Credibility even of an apparently comprehensive Medical Report established by Specialists, even if numerous and/or Highly Qualified, may be seriously challenged if the particular circumstances of a case clearly reveal justified Doubts or even a blatant Contradiction vis a vis real and important Facts :

F.ex., the "Independence" of a whole panel composed by eminent Specialists Medical Doctors was  challenged, even if it was contardicted just by a differend conclusion by a non-specialist, because they came from the same University Faculties and/or Hospitals as an influential Professor of Medicine whose action vis a vis a patient who died in controversial circumstances had to be assessed, (see  case "Bajic v. Croatia").

 
In consequence, even if it wasn't yet proven false, their Report wasn't judged reliable enough, mainly because, in those circumstances, it wasn't possible to exclude People's legitimate Concerns about a Risk of Collusion of interests which might not reveal the whole Truth. Thus, the State's responsibility to make a full, independent and efficient Investigation in order to find the real Causes for the Death of patient was engaged.

+ At another case, despite numerous Medical acts, and long, extensive and repeated Medical Treatments, Tests, Reports, etc., on a Prisoner condemned for Murder, who suffered from earlier Drug Addiction and HIV, added to subsequent symptoms of Tuberculosis, etc., another State's Authorities were found by ECHR to have failed to provide an "Adequate Medical care", because of certain unjustified  Delays and other acts or ommissions which exposed the victim to unnecessary Health Risks, (f.ex. brief but repeated transferts to Jail Cells shared with other inmates affected by infectious diseases, etc), and, most of all, because a final Report by a team of Experts which had concluded by claiming that the victim's Health condition had evolved in a "Satisfactory" way, came just .. a few Months before he died !.. (See case of "Koryak v. Russia").

---------------------
Last but not least, ECHR judged, indirectly but clearly, that, even if an appliquant can't yet prove, not even openly claim that a State's agent might have "intentionaly killed" a victim, it's enough to simply "imply" such a possibility, in order to raise an issue concerning also the Substantial, and not only the Procedural obligations resulting from a State's duty to protect People's Human Lives, resulting in a full and extended control of its behavior, (including access to Criminal proceedings too).

But, in the opposite case, States' procedural obligation to "take approproate steps to Safeguard the Lives of those within its jurisdiction", is, in principle, fullfilled, if it "has made Adequate Provision to secure High Professional Standards among Health Professionals, and the Protection of patients' lives", even if "an error of judgement ..., or failure to coordinate by health professionals, in the treatment of a particular patient", might, eventually, reveal a "negligence" from them.

In particular, in cases of "Medical Negligence", States are "required to to set up an effective independent judicial system, so that the cause of death of patients in the care of the medical profession, ....can be determined and those responsible made accountable", ECHR confirmed.

In this regard, "Promptness and reasonable Expedition" is required, because, "even where there may be obstacles or difficulties which prevent progress in an Investigation in a particular situation, a Prompt response by the Authorities is Vital to the maintenance of Public Confidence  in their adherence to the Rule of Law and to the prevention of any Appearance of Collusion in or Tolerance of Unlawful Acts".

Therefore, "the State’s obligation under Article 2 of the Convention will not be satisfied if the Protection afforded ...exists only in Theory: above all, it must also operate Effectively in Practice,  and that requires a Prompt Examination of the case, without unnecessary Delays".

+ There are also "more General considerations (which) call for a Prompt Examination of cases concerning Death in a Hospital setting", because "Knowledge of the facts and of possible Errors committed in the course of Medical Care are Essential to enable the institutions concerned and medical staff to Remedy potential Deficiencies and Prevent similar Errors" in the Future, ECHR added.

=> "Therefore, the Prompt Examination of such cases is Important for the Safety of Users of all Health Services", EuroJudges stressed.

But, if there are "No grounds for any Doubts" "with regard to the Treatment administered", then, an eventual "Failure to conduct certain Examinations should have been considered a Lack of Due Diligence", only, "and Not Medical Malpractice", and, if the State concerned has made an "Investigation ..(which).. elucidated the circumstances relevant to any .. Responsibility on the part of the Medical personel for the Death" of a patient, then, it has "Dealt with the applicant’s Claim ...with the Level of Diligence Required" by that State, ECHR concluded, (in the case "Z v. Poland").

Even if these Judgements were published by Differend Sections of the ECHR, and were presented amidst various others cases, nevertheless, it's also a Fact that All 3 concern Similar issues, and were published Together Today, while being obviously complementary to each other, towards establishing CoE Member States' duties to ensure Medical Standards respectful of elementary Human Rights.

--------------