Doctor acquitted of involuntary homicide of inmate

A court acquitted a doctor of involuntary homicide of a prison inmate after evidence pointed to the doctor not having received all the relevant information.

The incident happened on 28 August 2010, when a 45-year old inmate, using his cell’s buzzer, complained with the prison guards that he was suffering from chest pains. The guard informed the doctor of the inmate's complaints and was instructed to administer paracetamol to the patient.

The doctor also instructed the guard to keep the inmate under observation and update him with any changes.

When the inmate failed to answer his intercom, the guard found him unconscious in his cell. The inmate was conveyed to hospital where he was pronounced dead on arrival.

The autopsy report concluded the inmate had died due to acute myocardial infraction (heart attack).

Prosecuting inspector Spiridione Zammit charged the doctor with the involuntary homicide of the inmate, through negligence in carrying out his duties.

Court expert Mario Scerri took the stand, explaining that the chest pain the inmate complained about was the start of a heart attack. “There is no doubt that if he had been taken to hospital earlier, he would have stood a better chance of surviving. It is proven that there was a delay in medical assistance”, Scerri said.

However, cardiologist Hubert Felice, also nominated by the court, said that from the autopsy report, he concluded that the inmate had already suffered a heart attack, at least two months prior to the fatal incident.

“The inmate suffered a severe heart attack. Symptoms must have started at least 24 hours earlier, and the actual heart attack started 12 hours before he died. His heart was weak due to previous heart attacks”, he said.

Felice said that the accused was not aware that the guard did not have a visual of the inmate. “He ordered the guard to keep him under observation, yet his order was not followed. Hence his request to administer paracetamol and wait half an hour to see what effect the medicine would have, was completely reasonable” the cardiologist explained.

The prison guard who dealt with the inmate alleged that during the very first call he told the doctor that the inmate was, “complaining of chest pain and the start of a heart attack”. He argued that the doctor only asked him questions in the second and third call.

Moreover, telephone call analyses revealed that the longest call was the first one. “A call of 117 seconds proves that the doctor had indeed questioned the guard about visible symptoms in the first call, contrary to the guard’s claims”, the court said.

From the first instant, the doctor said that he had questioned the guard to see if the inmate’s pupils were dilated, if he was vomiting or if there were other symptoms. The guard always replied in the negative.

Magistrate Audrey Demicoli said the court could not base its conclusions on the evidence tendered by the prison guard. The prosecuting officer himself corroborated the version recounted by the doctor.

Magistrate Audrey Demicoli concluded that after hearing all the evidence, it is evident that the doctor was aware that the inmate suffered from acid attacks. This was listed in his medical file. However the doctor was not aware that the information given by the guard was unreliable.

The court ruled that based on the information he was given, the actions taken by the doctor had been diligent and in line with his professional responsibilities.

The doctor was cleared of charges of the voluntary homicide of the inmate.

Lawyers Joe Giglio and Louise Pulis represented the doctor.