Chlorine dioxide: Scientific repudiation and complaint for …

“This fact is a clear example of judicial malpractice and medical with a serious symbolic affectation because it can confuse people. It cannot be argued further if dioxide yes or dioxide no: it is dioxide no“, he sentenced in dialogue with Page 12 Ignacio Maglio, president of the Bioethics Committee of the Hupedes Foundation and advisor to the National Ministry of Health. This Tuesday, the lawyer for the family of Oscar García Rúa, the 92-year-old man died after a doctor outside the Otamendi Sanatorium supplied him with chlorine dioxide by court order, announced that they will start legal actions against the health center for refusing to use the chemical compound not authorized by the Anmat. Meanwhile, 45 medical and scientific societies signed a document in which they observed with “great concern the interference of the judiciary in a medical-scientific issue with implications for public health “.

“Justice should not oblige doctors to indicate a medication that has no scientific backing and is not authorized by national and international regulatory bodies, or endorsed by scientific societies, “the 45 entities that make up the Forum of Scientific Societies, Civil Society Organizations and Universities. Among the signatory bodies are the Argentine Society of Infectology (SADI), the Argentine Society of Intensive Care (SATI), the Argentine Society of Vaccination and Epidemiology (SAVE), the Argentine Toxicological Association (ATA) and the Host Foundation.

The document warned that “the autonomy of the health team” cannot be “replaced by judicial decisions lacking scientific basis“, and it was recalled that” both the Ministry of Health of the Nation, as well as other institutions linked to health had manifested contraindicating“the application of chlorine dioxide in patients diagnosed with covid-19,” not only because of its inefficiency but mainly because of its lack of security“.

“The judge should have requested a report from the foreseen organizations, such as the Forensic Medical Corps or even the SADI, for example. But that was not even necessary, by searching the internet it would have warned that it is discouraged by Anmat since August 2020 and long overdue by WHO and PAHO, which indicate that not only is it not a drug, but that it causes mild, moderate and even severe adverse events“, said in this sense Maglio, who in addition to chairing the Foundation’s Bioethics Committee is a lawyer at the Muñiz Hospital and is part of the Ethics and Human Rights Committee in the Covid-19 Pandemic, formed in June 2020 with the objective of advise the national health portfolio on the ethical implications of the pandemic.

While still Justice is expected to determine if the application of the dioxide influenced the death of the patient, this Tuesday, Martín Sarubbi, lawyer for the García Rúa family, indicated that the chemical compound finally It was not supplied by the Otamendi professionals Instead, the day before his death, it was applied by the doctor Dante Converti, the same one who had prescribed it in the instance that ended with the ruling of the federal judge Javier Pico Terrero urging Otamendi to apply the dioxide.

A doctor outside the health center, Converti is presented on his website as a promoter of “unique treatments by the combination of different therapies according to the needs of the patient and the characteristics of his pathology. “In addition, although the doctor presented himself as a neurosurgeon before the Court, his studies in this field date back to the 1980s and the Argentine Association of Neurosurgery issued a statement in which not only reported that Convert non member of that entity but, in any case, the medical treatment of a severe covid-19 picture, “is not within the competence and training of neurosurgery specialists“This Tuesday, Converti’s office in the City of Buenos Aires was raided as part of the judicial investigations.

Even so, Sarubbi announced that they will denounce Otamendi for “culpable homicide and their responsibility to the extent that having a judicial order they refused to carry out the treatment. We understand that set up a disobedience”, He asserted in dialogue with Delta FM. For his part, Maglio described this possible complaint as “another legal delusion“, and argued that, if presented,” Justice should reject it immediately. “

One of the arguments put forward by both the family of the deceased man and his lawyer is that the application of chlorine dioxide to García Rúa was one of many “alternatives“That they used to try to save his life.” One regrets it and sympathizes with the family, if they tell you ‘your relative is dying and we can give him this to improve’ you are going to hold on to that, but it is not about judging the family, you have to evaluate the responsibilities of the judge and the prescribing physician“, warned the bioethicist.

In this sense, in its document, the Forum stressed that, despite the requests of the family, the principles of “beneficence” and “fundamentally that of non-maleficence should prevail – ‘first do not harm‘- a guiding principle before any medical act “:” It is a principle that is 2,500 years old, was raised by Hippocrates and is the moral foundation of bioethics: avoiding evil“Maglio explained.

Shapeless: Santiago Brunetto.


Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.