The sixth section of the Provincial Court of A Coruña has dismissed the appeals filed by the Prosecutor’s Office and the Association of People Affected by Hepatite C against the order of November 2019 in which the Investigating Court number 3 of Santiago de Compostela decreed the provisional dismissal of the case and filing of the proceedings regarding the director of Health Assistance and the deputy director of the Pharmacy of the Servizo Galego de Saúde (Sergas) at the time of the events, who were investigated as allegedly responsible for crimes of homicide due to serious professional negligence and prevarication for, presumably, not facilitating the treatment of hepatitis C patients.
The judges, like the instructor, consider that there is no causal relationship between the deaths of the patients and the acts attributable to those investigated, as they maintain that “the omission of a duty of care is not indirectly appreciated.” Thus, they indicate that they lack evidence that eliminating the delay in the authorization of the drug would have had any effect on patients.
“It must be reiterated that from the moment the doctor treating the patient decides to request the drug until it is administered to the patient, there is a long road in which the actions of those investigated adhere to the stretch between the receipt of the request in the general subdivision of pharmacy and the approval of the subcommission’s opinion ”, indicates the court, while stressing that those investigated cannot be held responsible“ for the situations before or after such entry ”.
The Hearing indicates that the prioritization of the patients and the restrictions on the requests of the drug occurred “from the perspective that the crystallization of the procedures regarding the financing and inclusion of the drug in the health system offer was near”. Therefore, it understands that “it was not a denial, but a postponement of the request and eventual authorization until the end of the program for which the priority had been established, with technical criteria, of a certain group of patients.” The judges, therefore, conclude that “it cannot be considered as constitutive of prevarication that the processing of the applications had as reference these progressively broader guidelines, reiterating that in any case we would be facing a postponement in the processing and not before a denial of the request. authorization of the treatment ”.