Patient dies one day after being diagnosed with enteritis... Why did the Supreme Court change the doctor's verdict from guilty to not guilty?

What kind of nonsensical thing is this..😡😡

Even after confirming that Mr. B's inflammation level (CRP) at the initial consultation was 80 times the normal range

It is clearly stated that no measures such as hospitalization or antibiotic administration were taken...

This is innocent?

No matter how many times I read it... I still can't understand it... Do you understand?

The Supreme Court ruled that it is difficult to see that the court could have foreseen that B would rapidly worsen to the point of death within a day due to symptoms such as septic shock, and therefore, cannot hold A liable for medical negligence.

So, I am innocent because I didn't know it would deteriorate so rapidly to the point of death in just one day.

Initially, the inflammation level was said to be 80 times higher than that of a healthy person... Why on earth was he sent back?

Sigh... Who exactly are the laws for anyway...

I think I will feel very unfairly treated ㅠㅠ

A front view photo of the Supreme Court building in Seocho-gu, Seoul. Reporter Han Su-bin © Kyunghyang Shinmun

A doctor who was indicted for giving a common diarrhea medication to a sepsis patient and sending them home, resulting in their death, was found guilty in the first and second trials but was acquitted by the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court's Part 1 (Presiding Justice Shin Sook-hee) announced on the 17th that it overturned the lower court's ruling and remanded the case to the Changwon District Court, regarding doctor A, who was indicted last month for professional negligence resulting in death.

A doctor named Mr. A, a physician at a hospital in the Gyeongnam region, was indicted for only providing general treatment such as prescribing an intestinal infection medication to patient Mr. B, who complained of abdominal pain on October 4, 2016, and then releasing him, leading to his death. Mr. A confirmed that at the initial consultation, Mr. B's inflammation level (CRP) was 80 times the normal value, but did not take measures such as hospitalization or administering antibiotics. Mr. B visited the emergency room that night, complaining that his symptoms had worsened after receiving general treatment for enteritis, and the emergency room doctor also prescribed medication related to enteritis. The next day in the afternoon, Mr. B was brought to the emergency room in cardiopulmonary arrest and ultimately died. The cause of death was multiple organ failure due to septic shock.

The first trial found A responsible for medical malpractice and sentenced him to 10 months in prison suspended for 2 years. The first trial court stated, "Mr. B exhibited specific symptoms and signs of acute infection or sepsis from the outpatient visit, and he died after his condition rapidly worsened," and "Even considering the autopsy results, it is difficult to believe that other factors besides sepsis were involved." Furthermore, it was noted that "if inflammatory markers had been checked, sepsis should have been suspected, and proactive measures should have been taken," indicating that A violated his duty of care. The appellate court's decision was the same.

The Supreme Court's ruling was different. It cited a Supreme Court precedent stating, "When judging whether a doctor was negligent in diagnosis, even if the doctor cannot perform a perfect clinical diagnosis, it must be examined whether the doctor at least foresaw the potential dangerous outcome and fulfilled the necessary duty of care to avoid it."

The Supreme Court ruled that diagnosing acute enteritis does not fall outside the scope of diagnostic standards practiced in the medical field, and it is difficult to see that it could have predicted the rapid deterioration, such as the onset of septic shock symptoms leading to death within a day, in Mr. B. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that there was medical negligence on the part of Mr. A.

<Source: Kyunghyang Shinmun>