A court endorses the decision of a public hospital not to authorize ozone therapy for a patient with covid

The Contentious-Administrative Court number 1 of Castellón has rejected the appeal, to be processed by the special procedure for the protection of fundamental rights, filed by the wife of a patient affected by coronavirus and admitted to the La Plana Hospital last month of August, against the decision of the manager of the center not to authorize an ozone therapy treatment by an external doctor specialized in this therapy.

A court endorses the decision of a public hospital not to authorize ozone therapy for a patient with covid

The Contentious-Administrative Court number 1 of Castellón has rejected the appeal, to be processed by the special procedure for the protection of fundamental rights, filed by the wife of a patient affected by coronavirus and admitted to the La Plana Hospital last month of August, against the decision of the manager of the center not to authorize an ozone therapy treatment by an external doctor specialized in this therapy.

The magistrate-judge, in a resolution to which Europa Press has had access, dismisses the patient's wife's claim, considering that, with the refusal to authorize the therapy, her fundamental rights were not violated given that, of the documents and reports in the case, "it is clear that the Spanish Medicines Agency did not endorse the ozone therapy treatment" in these cases "nor was the so-called 'compassionate use' authorized in accordance with the applicable regulations, nor did said body have verified studies or data on its safety and possible adverse effects".

Therefore, it considers that "in no way" can it be considered that the appealed decision could be harmful to the interests of the patient, because it was based on the fact that this treatment "is not provided for in the medical guidelines and protocols applicable in Spanish public hospitals, nor the specific use of the product, in this case, is authorized by the Spanish Medicines Agency, nor do the competent administrations certify that its specific use" in this case "has the necessary guarantees, nor do they certify that it has passed the tests or clinical trials necessary in accordance with to the regulations".

[The alert of Margarita del Val, Pedro Cavadas and Bill Gates on the coronavirus and the use of vaccines]

Along these lines, it maintains that the petition is not based on the Basic Law regulating patient autonomy and rights and obligations in matters of information and clinical documentation, and underlines that the Law on Cohesion and Quality of the National Health System establishes that the new techniques will be subject to evaluation, on a mandatory basis and prior to their use, in the National Health System, by the Spanish Network of Agencies for the Evaluation of Health Technologies and Benefits of the National Health System.

This case generated a strong controversy in August of last year after a substitute magistrate accepted a very precautionary measure and allowed the use of ozone therapy in the center for this patient, by an external team. The community and medical societies protested because this use was not endorsed by either the Spanish Medicines Agency or the Carlos III Institute, they understood that there was a lack of evidence of its efficacy in covid patients and that its compassionate use is not an ideal option.

Health workers from all over the Valencian Community gathered at the doors of hospitals and health centers to support the professionals of La Plana, who had opposed the administration, and defend that "science yes, magic no".

The titular judge agreed to lift this precautionary measure for the administration of ozone therapy at the end of August at the request of the patient's family to transfer him for care outside the Valencian Community.

Yorum yapabilmek için üye girişi yapmanız gerekmektedir.

Üye değilseniz hemen üye olun veya giriş yapın.

NEXT NEWS