Medical Malpractice Case: Enema Error Analysis
I. Relevant Facts: Legal and Criminal Aspects
Two behaviors are relevant in determining potential criminal liability for injuries sustained by a patient. First, the accidental administration of a substance via enema by an assistant, supervised by a midwife, where the substance was mistakenly introduced instead of alcohol. Second, the failure to report the error and the subsequent injuries to the appropriate personnel. Therefore, we must consider whether this conduct constitutes a crime of reckless injury (Article 147 of the Spanish Criminal Code) and a possible failure to provide assistance (Article 195 of the Spanish Criminal Code).
II. Criminal Legal Analysis
1. Action
The existence of an action, in principle, cannot be ruled out in either of the two behaviors described above.
2. Causality
2.1. Incorrect Enema Administration
It seems evident that the incorrect administration of the enema to ‘A’ is the direct cause of the subsequent injuries. Had the incorrect substance not been administered, the injuries would not have occurred (necessary cause).
2.2. Lack of Communication to Competent Personnel
The failure to communicate the error to the appropriate personnel is the sole cause of the injuries suffered. Had the error been reported promptly, it might have been possible to reduce or even prevent the damage. Therefore, it cannot be argued that the injuries were due to reasons other than those stated, as the act of omission (failure to inform) directly influenced the final result: the patient’s injuries. Furthermore, as is clear from the facts, there is a direct relationship between the lack of communication and the resulting harm.
3. Objective Imputation
Regarding the first behavior (the incorrect enema administration), it is clear that the error made by ‘B’ and ‘C’ put the patient at risk. We are not dealing with professional malpractice requiring specialized knowledge, but rather simple, common negligence. However, it is important to note that both ‘B’ and ‘C’, aware of their mistake, attempted to remedy the situation by administering a second enema to cleanse the affected area.
This behavior suggests *slight negligence*, as the confusion between the substances was due to an error by the midwife in placing them incorrectly. This highlights the need for increased care by the hospital in differentiating and storing such substances.
On the other hand, the second behavior (the omission) relates to the failure to act. Neither ‘B’ nor ‘C’ informed the on-call doctor or other staff members, nor did they record the incident in the patient’s chart. These circumstances suggest *gross negligence*, as neither ‘B’ nor ‘C’ fulfilled their duty to report, thereby failing to meet their required standard of care.
It could be argued that they acted under duress. However, there appears to be no reason to exempt them from liability under Article 20.6 of the Spanish Criminal Code. The fear of their error being detected, which was initially minor, does not release them from their duty to report.
The hypothesis of gross negligence on the part of ‘B’ and ‘C’ seems most accurate. After realizing their mistake, they failed to inform anyone, which further aggravated the situation, leading to the injuries. They therefore violated a fundamental duty of care.
Finally, regarding the failure to provide relief (Article 195 of the Spanish Criminal Code), it does not appear applicable in this case. As mentioned above, ‘B’ and ‘C’ applied a saline solution to attempt to correct the error. This indicates that they *did* provide some form of relief to the patient upon realizing the mistake. However, this is distinct from their failure to fulfill their duty to report the incident.