The High Criminal Court acquitted a breast cancer surgeon of medical negligence charges on 15 October 2026. The case concerned the death of a 53-year-old patient who passed away in May 2024. According to court records, the patient died after contracting a viral infection and subsequently suffering cardiac arrest. Prosecutors had brought the negligence charges following an investigation into the clinical care provided during the patient's treatment. The court's ruling follows an extensive review of the medical procedures and the documentation provided by the National Health Regulatory Authority. Defense counsel for the surgeon maintained that the patient's death resulted from complications unrelated to the surgical intervention. The judge ultimately dismissed all counts, concluding that the medical team followed standard protocols.
Patient Refusal of Treatment
Medical records show the patient was diagnosed with Stage 3 invasive ductal carcinoma in 2022. Following this diagnosis, she refused multiple medical interventions recommended by her care team, including a core biopsy, PET scan, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and hormone therapy.
Documentation presented during the trial confirmed that the patient signed an Against Medical Advice (AMA) form to formalize her decision. This document stated her clear choice to decline the proposed treatment plans despite the severity of her condition. The court considered these records as part of the evidence regarding the care provided before her death in May 2024. Defense attorneys argued that the refusal of these standard procedures limited the medical team's ability to intervene further in the progression of the cancer. The judge examined the signed form while reviewing the clinical history and the subsequent actions taken by the surgeon. These details formed a central component of the defense strategy during the negligence proceedings.
Dispute Over Regulatory Report
The High Criminal Court rejected a report issued by the National Health Regulatory Authority (NHRA) that alleged the doctor’s care contributed to the patient's death. This document served as a core element of the prosecution's case, suggesting that clinical actions taken by the surgeon had a direct impact on the patient's outcome.
Defense attorneys challenged the validity of these findings during the proceedings. They argued that the NHRA report was biased because the doctor's former husband served as a member of the committee that authored the document. The defense team contended that this personal connection compromised the neutrality of the regulatory review process. Judges ultimately excluded the report from their final assessment, citing the lack of impartiality within the investigative committee. This decision removed the primary evidence linking the surgeon to the patient's fatal infection and subsequent cardiac arrest. The court concluded that the procedures followed by the medical team remained consistent with standard healthcare practices.
