A cancer in the cervix that was not detected in time ended up leaving a 33-year-old woman sterile, who spent almost two years warning her doctor that she was suffering from bleeding and is now still fighting for responsibilities to be cleared. "He saw that I kept bleeding and bleeding and bleeding and he did nothing," says this woman, who four years ago filed a complaint against her doctor, Orlando S.P., for negligence, but has now just seen the case dismissed.
This Argentine doctor worked at the Insular Hospital, then dependent on the Cabildo of Lanzarote, and despite being in a public center he did not have the title of gynecology approved - he only had that of general medicine - as he himself acknowledged during the investigation. However, this fact has not even been taken into account in the judicial procedure, which was initiated only for the alleged crime of malpractice, but not for possible intrusion.
"The Chamber is not insensitive to the patient's pain due to the consequences of the detected cervical cancer and the sterility caused, supposedly avoidable with an earlier diagnosis of the disease, but this should not imply the indiscriminate criminalization of the professional," argues the order issued last July by the Provincial Court, which confirms the definitive dismissal of the case issued by the Investigating Court.
In its resolution, Section One cites different jurisprudence to emphasize that "not every negligence causing damage or injury constitutes criminal recklessness"; that medicine is "an inexact science by definition"; that there is "fallibility" in doctors; and that, "as a general rule, an error in diagnosis is not typifiable as a criminal offense, unless its entity and dimensions constitute an inexcusable mistake."
"I feel super small facing everything I am facing. Psychologically I am not well, I am devastated and I see that nobody helps me. I see myself alone," denounces this woman, who is now studying to undertake new actions and regrets that "nobody has been able to study the case as it should be studied." And this now includes the Justice system - and in particular the judge who investigated her case, Rafael Lis - and of course the doctor who treated her, whom she had been going to for gynecological check-ups since she was 14 years old, without knowing that he did not have the approved title. In fact, she found out during the investigation of this case, after having filed the complaint, and that is why she did not include it in the complaint at the time.
Gynecological consultation with a general medicine doctor
Orlando S.P. worked at the Family Planning Center of the Insular Hospital, which provided advice on pregnancy prevention and sexual education, but also performed gynecological consultations. In fact, among the functions of this center was expressly included the "prevention and early detection of breast cancer and cervical cancer", which was precisely what this patient suffered, without being diagnosed in time.
In June 2013, it is recorded that she warned her doctor for the first time that she had "episodes of bleeding after having sexual relations", so a few days later a cytology was performed. However, the result did not warn of signs of cancer. "Bleeding causes cytologies to give false negatives," she pointed out in the complaint, in which she argued that a biopsy should have been performed then.
The doctor, who only had approval in Spain to practice as a general medicine doctor, then diagnosed her with an "ectopia" in the uterus, which is a wound due to inflammation of cervical cells. Thus, he started a treatment that did not put an end to the bleeding. In fact, the patient returned to the consultation on several occasions and warned again that the symptom persisted. A year later, the doctor performed another cytology, which again gave a negative result, and again no further tests were performed.
It was in March 2015, a year and nine months after the symptoms began and after the patient went to the consultation up to twice in a few days, when the doctor performed a third cytology, which revealed an advanced carcinoma, so she was referred to the Canarian Health Service.
"After two years, that ectopia, which he diagnosed me by the grace of the holy spirit, turned into a cancer that left me completely sterile at 33 years old," denounces the affected woman. In that last report, the doctor already pointed out that the cervix had increased in size and was "bleeding on contact."
Bleeding, "one of the main symptoms of uterine cancer"
In the complaint that was initially admitted for processing but has now been dismissed, the lawyer of this patient pointed out that this late diagnosis caused the disease to develop, "endangering her life and causing her harm", since she had to undergo "a much more aggressive surgical and chemo-radiotherapeutic treatment" that caused her sterility.
In that complaint, based on a medical report from a party prepared by an expert in this type of cancer, it was also pointed out that "postcoital bleeding is one of the main symptoms of uterine cancer" and that the protocol establishes that a biopsy should be performed. In addition, he stressed that a colposcopy, which is a vision of the cervix with a magnifying lens, was not performed either.
However, the report of the forensic doctor of the Courts ruled out that there had been malpractice, pointing out that cytology is the "main test" to detect this type of cancer; that only depending on the results and the examination "other tests are assessed"; and that "there is no protocol in the Canary Islands that says that all patients should have a biopsy." However, the same report also points out that cytology "is not an infallible test" and that it only detects "between 45 and 75% of cases."
"In medicine, you first rule out the important, the serious. And he saw that I kept bleeding and he did nothing," laments this woman, who is now studying to take action through civil channels or even file a new criminal complaint for intrusion, due to the fact that the doctor did not have an approved title as a gynecologist.
In addition, she assures that when she went to ask for a second opinion from a private gynecologist, after the third cytology had already detected the cancer, the doctor's question was: "Have you never been to a gynecologist, have you?" "In the state in which they caught me I already had five centimeters," she denounces. "Someone has to give me guarantees that this will not happen again. I went to my check-ups, I went to the consultation and I warned that the symptoms continued, and because of a bad management of the Cabildo or the Insular Hospital this has happened to me. Someone has to answer," she claims, recalling that in that center they paid for the consultations, although they were subsidized and were carried out in a public hospital.
She filed a complaint because the forensic report had not been issued for more than a year and a half
Regarding what happened with the judicial case, she also shows her disappointment and indignation at the treatment she has been given and with some of the people who intervened. "How could they give my case to a judge like Rafael Lis?" she asks, referring to the magistrate who occupied the Court of Instruction Number 3 of Arrecife, who was investigated and was even sanctioned by the General Council of the Judiciary, for serious misconduct in the exercise of his office.
According to her account, just before retiring, Lis "closed" the issue and filed it, thus closing one of the cases that had been accumulating in his Court without being resolved. In addition, among the people who she considers have not dedicated due attention to her case also includes the forensic doctor who prepared the judicial report. In this regard, she states that a year and seven months after the report was commissioned, he was still not issuing it, keeping the case "totally paralyzed" and without the judge taking measures or requiring it. For this reason, she decided to file a complaint with the Institute of Legal Medicine of Las Palmas.
That complaint is dated February 8, 2019 and only seven days later, the forensic doctor finally issued his report, which was unfavorable to the complainant and which is dated February 15 of that same year. "He did it quickly and badly after I filed the complaint," argues the affected woman, who considers that there are "errors" and "omissions" in the opinion.
Afterwards, that report was key to the dismissal order issued by Lis, and now to the new resolution of the Provincial Court, which has rejected the appeal that the patient filed against the dismissal of the case. "In view of that report, there is no objective data to continue with the criminal procedure," the Court points out.
For her part, the affected woman questions that only that report was taken into account, which she considers has "important shortcomings" and "does not even provide protocols or guidelines for medical actions"; and that the opinion that she presented, from a specialist in the matter, which concluded that a biopsy should have been performed much earlier, has not been assessed.
"I am very disappointed with the Justice system. They ruin my life, I do things right, I denounce, I commission reports, I spend what is not written... and then it turns out that nothing happens?" she laments.
