0
The Public Defender’s Office of the Federal District () went to court to guarantee the reparation of the rights of a 25-year-old woman, allegedly a victim of medical malpractice. After treatment at a private clinic, the young woman lost the movement of her legs.
According to the Consumer Protection Legal Assistance Center (Nudecon), the woman suffered from intense pain in the pelvic region, lumbar hip and lower abdomen, resulting from deep endometriosis. However, during treatment with the use of phenol, he became paralyzed.
Also read
Before undergoing the procedure, the woman received a recommendation from another medical team to install a sacral neurostimulator. According to , the clinic decided on phenolization. However, the patient would not have been warned about the likely risks to her health and physical integrity.
In addition to continuing to suffer from the chronic pain she sought to treat, the woman’s condition was worsened by paraplegia and emotional disorders. For the general public defender, Celestino Chupel, the case clearly reveals the risks that the lack of adequate information and the adoption of reckless medical conduct can generate.
According to the Brazilian Medical Association (AMB), application of the compound in concentrations greater than 3% interrupts nerve conduction and the reflex arc, reducing muscle tone. According to the Public Defender’s Office, the clinic would have applied 7% glycerin phenol, instead of the implant, as recommended by the previous medical team.
Necrosis
The report from the Forensic Medical Institute (IML), attached to the process, also warns that phenol can cause tissue necrosis in 5 to 10% of cases and accidental nerve injury, with motor or sensory deficits, affecting 3 to 5% of patients, among other effects not reported to the person assisted.
Furthermore, it should be noted that, one month after the phenolization of the patient, the National Health Surveillance Agency (Anvisa) issued resolution No. 2,384/24, prohibiting its use in health procedures, precisely due to its high danger.
According to public defender and head of Nudecon, Antônio Carlos Cintra, the doctor took a disproportionate risk, depriving the patient of an informed choice, leaving a girl of just 25 years old unable to walk.
“The young woman was seeking treatment to alleviate chronic pain, but ended up having her life profoundly impacted by a high-risk procedure, when there was another lower-risk alternative. The doctor could not have decided on this treatment without warning her about the possible consequences”, he stated.
