A court in Barcelona has sentenced the Catalan Health Service (CatSalut) to reimburse a patient for the 34,466 euros he invested in a private clinic to complete a colon reconstruction treatment and removal of the external feces collection bag. The public service – which had performed a colostomy on the 59-year-old patient – ??gave up carrying out the aforementioned intervention, considering it “completely inadvisable” and notified the man that he should carry the bag for life and permanently, “when from the “I had initially informed him of the provisional nature of the bag,” the ruling says.
The judge considers that it is not true that all the treatment options for the plaintiff had been completed and that CatSalut should have been responsible for removing the ostomy bag as it was a “life-threatening” situation since it “had an impact on the physical integrity ( of the patient), the psychological and emotional state, as well as in the usual profession and the need to go through numerous situations of temporary disability.
The man underwent a colostomy at the Sant Joan de Déu hospital, in Barcelona, ??on August 13, 2018. On February 3, 2019, a second operation was performed to remove the temporary bag, and four days later he He underwent a third intervention for peritonitis (suture failure), without the feces container being able to be removed. “The actor requested that a new colon reconstruction be performed and the external pouch be removed, but the surgeon who had performed the previous interventions completely ruled out this possibility,” the ruling indicates.
Since, according to the judge, the possibilities of healing in public health care were closed, the patient turned to private health care, where “he was offered surgical treatment with good results.” On November 12, 2020, colon reconstruction was performed with removal of the external bag at the Quirón hospital. The patient demanded reimbursement of the expenses from Catsalut, more than 34,000 euros, a request that the organization denied, alleging that it was not an emergency operation, but a scheduled one, and that the patient decided to marginalize the public system without exhausting its possibilities. .
However, according to the plaintiff’s lawyer, Núria Ballesteros, from Col·lectiu Ronda, the ruling makes “a broad and enriching interpretation of the concept of vital urgency, which encompasses not only bodily health but also the need for mental and emotional well-being, and the consequences of an unjustified refusal to exhaust all therapeutic and healing possibilities, as corresponds to a public health system regardless of the economic cost or the necessary means.”
Since the man was successfully operated on, he showed a good evolution and within a few weeks he returned to his work activity, the judge deduced that “it was not true that all the treatments and surgical interventions to achieve his cure had been completed.”
On the other hand, he understands that there was a vital urgency – contrary to what CatSalut maintains – because the situation “had an impact on his physical integrity, his psychological state and mood, as well as his usual profession.”
According to the resolution, the patient did not engage in an abusive attitude because he resorted to public health from the beginning, “until the moment he was informed that no further treatment could be provided and his therapeutic possibilities were exhausted, when he went to private healthcare and he was offered surgical treatment with good results.
