MOSCOW, February 2. /TASS./ Jail time for physician-hematologist Elena Mishurina, recognized guilty in the death of the patient, is too harsh a sentence.

Qualification of actions of the doctor who made the diagnosis routine, as well-intentioned creates a bad precedent and endangers the life of patients, because doctors will continue to fear making decisions in emergency situations, according to respondents TASS lawyers and medical professionals.

Experts have expressed concerns that such a practice judicial decisions can be fixed in the legislation.

Measure of responsibility

“Nowhere in the world doctors are not prosecuted for malpractice, from year to year the number of these errors remains approximately at the same level. If they are put behind bars, will be harmed in the first place, patients”, – said the President of the interregional public organization “League of protection of doctors” Semyon Galperin . According to him, in an emergency similar to that faced by Misurina, the doctor always has the choice what actions to undertake to save the patient’s life, however, “choosing tactics of treatment, he can not foresee everything”.

See also

What you need to know about the case of doctor Elena Mishurina

“Even the effects of drugs, as you know, are described statistically, and they can have side effects. If the doctor to think about all this, he won’t risk that patients will die,” – said the expert.

The chief of Department of endovascular surgery clinical hospital No. 52, where he worked Misurina, Alexander Vanyukov added that the interaction of the patient-physician always takes into account the risk and implies “some sort of agreement on a joint process.” “The patient trusts his doctor and follows his recommendations. The doctor also informs the patient about the risks, and they should decide together whether they go to these risks. There is no completely safe medical procedures,” he explained.

The Vanyukov stressed that insists on complete immunity for doctors. On the contrary, in the medical community there are requests for the formation of a legislative base, which would have distinguished between the concept of “complication”, “medical error” and “negligence”, that the penalties for each of them were clear “and was not confined to one article”, expressed the position of the expert.

Agree with him Director of the Institute of health organization and medical management, member of the public Council under the Ministry of public health David Melik-Guseinov. According to him, change requires not only the legislation, but the approach of the doctors to their work. Should the more responsible doctors which can be achieved with the help of progressive techniques: self-regulation and insurance, he said. “Made a mistake, the doctor is a professional society he was punished, called a diploma, certificate, license, and the insurance company paid for this mistake to the patient or his relatives some compensation” – gave the expert an example of a mechanism for increasing the responsibility of doctors.

The court did not consider all the circumstances and applied unnecessarily rigid article

Honorary lawyer of Russia, academician of the Russian Academy of natural Sciences (RANS), doctor of law Liudmila Aivar believes that in Misurina the court incorrectly applied the law. Hematologist convicted under article 238 of the criminal code “Rendering services not meeting safety requirements”, which implies deliberate actions. “In this case, we have to understand that Elena Mishurina deliberately, making a medical procedure made such manipulations that led to the death of a person. Common sense, logic and criminal law say that it is not, and she had to be brought under the 109th article of the criminal code “Causing death by negligence”, where a different, more lenient, measure of restraint”, – said the lawyer.

See also

Moscow city hall has offered to hold a rally in support of the doctor Misurino “Sokolniki”

SK: position of the Prosecutor in the matter of Misurina casts doubt on the work of Agency staff

Convicted doctor Misurina told human rights activists he hoped for a fair investigation

The Prosecutor’s office asks court to release from custody the doctor-hematologist Misurino

Assistant to the President of the “League for the protection of doctors,” public relations, the doctor-Olga Demicheva, added, received Misurino the patient was “critically ill patients with chronic hematologic disease”.

“In this disease, as is well known to any Clinician, patients are not only covered with external and internal bruising, but quite often there are spontaneous and difficult bleeding. Not exclude the situation that the patient began the most spontaneous bleeding that started and without trepanobiopsy (manipulation, which was conducted by the doctor Misurina – approx. TASS.) This clinical situation the court is not addressed”, she said.

The question of procedural rules

Aivar also believes that the trial was violated procedural norms: not been conducted the forensic examination, the court took the decision on the basis of the Protocol of autopsy conducted in a private clinic not having a license for such examination. Pathological services in principle should come out of the health care system, to give an objective evaluation when determining the causes of the death of a man, convinced the lawyer.

Prosecutors have pointed to violations during the investigation. According to authorities, collected and examined evidence to make an unambiguous conclusion about the proof of guilt of the hematologist. Therefore, the Prosecutor’s office of South-Western administrative district of Moscow on January 31, 2017 asked the court to cancel a sentence of the doctor – hematologist of Misurina, to release her from custody and to return criminal case to the Supervisory authority.

Official representative of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation Svetlana Petrenko rejected allegations of violations of procedural rules. She pointed to the fact that the Prosecutor’s office brought appeal representation on a sentence and asked to cancel the court decision held because of irregularities in the investigation, only after the case gained wide public resonance.