Mehmet Şentürk and Bekir Şentürk v. Turkey

In the case of Mehmet Şentürk and Bekir Şentürk v. Turkey (Application no. 13423/09) the Court found the violation of Article 2 of the ECHR in realtaion with the death of the first applicant's wife, the second applicant's mother, following a series of misjudgments by medical staff at different hospitals and the subsequent failure to provide her with emergency medical treatment when her condition was known to be critical. (Note: the language of the judgment is French, therefore I used the press release for the following summary)

On  11  March  2000  the  first  applicant’s  wife,  who  was  in the 34th week of her pregnancy, experienced pain. She then went to several hospitals where sha was not properly examined. As her pain did not lessen they went to Ege University  Hospital where the doctors found that her foetus was dead. Then Mrs Şentürk was told that she would have to be operated on to remove the child and, according to the applicants, was then asked to pay a deposit to cover the costs of her hospital admission and the surgery. As they did not have the sum required, the couple were sent to another hospital. Mrs Şentürk died without receiving any medical assistance while being transferred in the ambulance.

After the tragic event the Ministry of Health carried out an investigation that found several members of the hopsitals concerned liabile for the death of the woman. Furthermore, in 2001, several criminal proceeding were initiated against the medical personnel. The criminal court reached a conviction on 18 March 2008, but the applicants were dissatisfied with the judgment and appealed. In 2010 the Court of Cassation terminated the proceedings by virtue of the statute of limitations.

The applicants alleged that the right to life of the mother and the foetus had been infringed as a result of the negligence of the medical staff involved. They further complained about the length of the subsequent criminal proceedings.

Violation of Article 2

The Court set examined first whether the national authorities had done all that could reasonably have been expected of them to protect the patient’s physical well-being, in particular by providing her with appropriate medical care. It noted that some of the medical staff concerned had been found criminally liable by the first-instance court. It accepted the findings of the investigation carried out by the Turkish authorities, which had highlighted several errors of judgment by the doctors and serious deficiencies in relation to the patient’s transfer.

The ECtHR considered that the mother had not reached an informed decision to refuse treatment and that the national  authorities  had  therefore  been  under  an  obligation  to  treat  her,  not  least because the seriousness of her condition had not been in doubt. Accordingly, the Court held that the deceased had been denied access to appropriate emergency treatment, which in itself amounted to a violation of the substantive aspect of Article 2.

The Court then examined whether the investigations by the Turkish authorities had been able to shed light on the events. In the medical sphere, a prompt response by the authorities was vital in maintaining public confidence and support for the rule of law. In this case, however, the proceedings had lasted more than nine years in total, of which some three years had been taken up simply by the administrative procedure of leave to bring a prosecution; this did not satisfy the requirement of a prompt examination.

As regards the criminal procedure, the Court noted that it was possible in Turkey to institute both civil and criminal proceedings in the event of a death in hospital. However, where persons responsible for endangering life were not charged with a criminal offence or prosecuted, this could amount to a violation of Article 2. The Court noted that the same applied in  the case of a hospital’s failure to provide a patient with medical assistance. In the present case, Turkish criminal procedure had not afforded the opportunity to establish the full responsibility of the medical staff concerned, and this amounted to a second violation of Article 2.

In relation with the right to life http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=4524223062577257773#editor/target=post;postID=3662789365374205306;onPublishedMenu=overviewstats;onClosedMenu=overviewstats;postNum=3;src=postnameof the foetus, the ECtHR considered  that  it  was  not  necessary  to  examine  whether  the applicants’ complaint concerning the unborn child fell within the scope of Article 2 of the Convention. In the absence of a European consensus on the scientific and legal definition of the beginning of life, States enjoyed a wide margin of appreciation in this sphere, as the Court had held in a previous case. The life of the foetus was intimately connected with that of the mother and was dependent on the treatment she received. Accordingly, the Court considered that the applicants’ complaint in relation to this issue did not require a separate examination.

Remainder of the Application

With regard to its previous findings, the Court considered that there was no need for a separate examination of the remainder of the application.

***

See a comment on the case by Saïla Ouald Chaib on Strasbourg Observers.

See also updated the factsheet on the Right to Life here.