The family's lawyer was asked to comment on the decision for medical negligence against a gynecologist from Cyprus, whose actions and omissions caused cerebral palsy in a newborn girl.
As mentioned by Giannos Georgiadis, speaking in Erthe ki Edese, this is the case of a child who is born, is in a pram, cannot see, cannot communicate and the parents have to take care of him as long as they live and have exorbitant expenses. Today the child is 11 years old.
"These mistakes must be made public because not only do the parents get justice, but it also helps medical science itself, because when they become known then it prevents others from making the same mistakes," he stressed.
He also said the doctor will have to pay 2.5 million in damages plus interest plus legal fees, but no amount can ease the pain.
He noted that an arrangement must be found so that doctors are insured for such large sums. "When a parent is vindicated, they should not have to have the trouble afterwards to get the amount," he concluded.
The history of the decision
According to the decision, the baby girl was born on 03/06/2011. According to the child's parents, on the day of her birth, the doctor administered oxytocin (Syntocinon), and a cocktail of drugs, and then artificially ruptured the follicle. The mother was dazed and hypnotized throughout the entire procedure without communicating with the environment. The court heard that the child was born black and could not speak. Within a minute or two, the pediatrician arrived and performed CPR and immediately administered an antidote, so the infant developed a rapid heart rate and a rosy complexion.
The lawyer Giannos Georgiadis, who handled the case with Doria Varosiotou, stated that according to the testimony of the expert doctors who were called as witnesses, there was no reason to administer oxytocin to the mother since the birth was progressing smoothly and there was progress dilation, and that, on the contrary, due to the continuous strong and additional contractions of the uterus caused by the oxytocin, which was administered before the artificial rupture of the membranes, the blood supply to the baby girl was significantly reduced, resulting in intrauterine hypoxia.
Also, the contractions created due to the administration of oxytocin caused the mother to produce more lactic acid that crossed the placenta and penetrated the infant's brain, causing swelling and necrosis of the brain. In fact, the combined administration of the cocktail of drugs, especially two and a half hours before birth, caused drowsiness and suppression of the respiratory center in the infant's brain stem, eventually leading to hypooxygenation, which caused extensive brain damage to the little girl.
According to the lawyer who handled the case, "the evidence from which the exact time point of the hypoxia could be proven, ie the cardiotocogram, was never produced, with the gynecologist claiming it was lost". The successful resuscitation performed by the pediatrician is the reason why the little girl is alive today, but the severe permanent brain, mental and motor disability due to intrauterine hypoxia.
The day after the birth, the child's mother and her husband went to Makarios Hospital, where they faced the harsh truth and, as he told the Court, "everyone's life was destroyed in those 15 minutes that their first visit to Makarios lasted Hospital".
The mother argued that, on the advice of other doctors, after the event at issue, the cocktail of drugs given to her by the gynecologist during labor caused intrauterine hypoxia and an immediate caesarean section had to be performed. Instead, the doctor let the labor progress naturally.
After legal advice from lawyer Giannos Georgiadis, they filed a lawsuit against the doctor. The attorney explained that according to Dr. Loizou, who was called to testify as an expert witness, “the use of Pethidine and Phenergan is the cause of the brain damage that the little girl has. These drugs caused the baby girl to become respiratory depressed and lead to hypoxic brain damage, and she argued that without the administration of these drugs the baby girl would have been a normal baby. He also stated that a caesarean section should be performed immediately and the baby girl should be born and the gynecologist should not wait for the normal delivery to be completed."
Also the gynaecologist, Dr. Spyridon Papaioannou, who has been working at the University Hospital of Birmingham since 2004, explained in his testimony what caused the problem of hypoxemic-ischemic encephalopathy, perinatal hypoxia and anoxia and quoted his positions in relation to the actions and omissions that led to the infant's condition. He found deficiencies in the mother's medical file in relation to the course of the girl's pregnancy and delivery and was particularly and strongly concerned with the absence of the cardiotocograph. As he also stated, there is no medical record of the follow-up of the delivery by the gynecologist, nor any justification for the actions and interventions he carried out during the progress of the delivery since the mother's admission to the Clinic. The 'LabourChart' is obviously incomplete and as he said, the absence of material evidence alone constitutes a breach of the duty of care.
However, in the decision for the gynecologist it is stated that "his attempt to renounce his responsibilities was obvious. As it has become clear, he is also affected by the incident, but he tried, unsuccessfully, to convince that his own actions were correct and appropriate, that he correctly proceeded with a normal birth until the end, correctly administered the drugs he administered to Plaintiff 2 the dosages and times at which he did so, and that responsibility for the state of the testimony rests with the pediatrician who, in his position, erroneously did not intubate the little girl immediately after her birth, a position which has been refuted by all the expert witnesses .
He also tried to abdicate his responsibilities for the non-existence and/or destruction and/or loss of the CT scan, but in no way gave a convincing explanation for this. He also presented evidence, which was clearly fabricated after the fact, and I am referring to the mother's hospital card and also unsuccessfully tried to justify the very parsimonious report he prepared by stating that if he had known it would be used in court proceedings he would have written it differently.
His attempt to disclaim responsibility and shift it elsewhere by resorting to reports of events that turned out to be inaccurate and/or not proven, such as for example a heated conversation between the pediatrician and the nurse accompanying the ambulance, demonstrated that the purpose of his testimony was indeed not was to tell the truth to the Court, but to remove any trace of responsibility from his own hands."
Also, it is emphasized that "the little girl is and will remain a dependent person where for a whole life she will need continuous assistance from one or two people 24 hours a day, 24 days a week, 7 days a year".
The lawyer said that no amount is enough to compensate the pain, mental anguish and suffering of the parents and the child but at least they feel vindicated by the fact that the court found liability against the doctor and a causal connection between the negligence and the serious physical injuries suffered by the little girl. It is a kind of relief as well as the financial support contributes to the effective care of the child in view of the huge amounts that the parents have to pay".
Sigmalive