Chlorine dioxide: controversy over a judge's decision that forced the application of an unauthorized treatment

Gonzalo herman

01/11/2021 14:04

• Clarín.com

• Society

Updated 01/11/2021 2:04 PM

A federal judge ordered the Otamendi Sanatorium to treat a patient hospitalized in serious condition due to Covid with the questioned chlorine dioxide.

The court ruling generated rejection from the clinic's medical staff and health professionals because the substance is not endorsed as a treatment or prevention against this disease, or any other.

The magistrate, in his controversial measure, protected a request from the patient's family, which is desperate to find a treatment that saves his life.

Jorge García Rúa is the hospitalized patient.

José María Lorenzo, the son of his wife - who died of the same disease shortly before - made a presentation to the Federal Justice so that his stepfather could

urgently

receive

chlorine dioxide treatment.

In the middle of the judicial fair, the surrogate federal judge Javier Pico Terrero, of the Federal Civil and Commercial Court No. 7,

granted the family's request,

considering that “the coverage of the indicated treatments would not cause serious damage to the defendant , but it avoids, on the other hand, the aggravation of the plaintiff's living conditions ”.

Thus, he forced Otamendi to give him intravenous chlorine dioxide and sodium ibuprofenate in nebulisations.

Neither of the two treatments received authorization from the National Administration of Medicines and Medical Technology (ANMAT).

García Rúa's stepson spread the ruling with a video on his social networks. 

The ruling generated much controversy in the health field due to

the ethical dilemma

that it poses to doctors who must, by court order, administer an unauthorized substance.

The Otamendi professionals demonstrated this Sunday against the Pico Terrero order "enforcing our Hippocratic oath," they said.

Consulted by this ruling, from the Otamendi Sanatorium they preferred not to comment.

But as

Clarín

learned

, the measure was appealed and ratified, for which the treatment was applied by the patient's personal neurosurgeon, Daniel Converti, the professional who recommended it to the García Rúa family.  

The Faculty of Justice

Can Justice authorize the application of a treatment not endorsed by the health authorities?

Andrés Gil Dominguez, constitutional lawyer, points out that a federal judge may have the power to

compel a doctor or an establishment

to apply a treatment or therapy not endorsed by the health authorities if he understands that it is not harmful.

The expert explains that the Pico Terrero ruling responds to two requests "that the patient be assisted with the medical means available and that the family members can enter intensive care to be with the patient." 

He says that the amparo is located

"in a critical situation

.

"

"It is a very extreme situation. The judge gives rise to a request from a family in a very limited context. Judicial decisions have to be taken into account at the extreme of the situation in which they operate. This person is one shot away from dying by the Covid ", details.

Gil Domínguez explains that "doctors can refuse to apply it because the order was directed to the establishment," but that the sanatorium "must guarantee the court order. It can do so with its own doctors, but if they refuse, it must hire external professionals.

No it can be denied.

If you do, it is a crime. "  

The brochure of the Otamendi doctors calling this Sunday against the court ruling.

"It must be understood that the order obeys the particularity of the case. It does

not allow the provision of chlorine dioxide for all the others. It

sets a precedent for these cases but it cannot be understood as law. It does not work like that," remarks the constitutionalist.

Along the same lines, Mariano Lizardo, a lawyer with experience in malpractice cases, stated that "a judge is the master of his decisions. He is not obliged to consult anyone to make a decision."

However, the lawyer did not rule out that this ruling could generate subsequent complaints and even lead to a political trial: "Both Otamendi and ANMAT can denounce the judge for this ruling, since it forces the application of a substance that is not approved for treatment medical and that it can be harmful. "

Medical reasons

Carlos Damin, professor of Toxicology at the UBA, stated in statements to TN that "chlorine dioxide is a first cousin of bleach. It is used as a bleach. It was never used as a treatment. It does not have any type of scientific evidence to demonstrate that as a medicine it is good.

It is clearly a toxic substance and can cause damage to health.

It is not used by any country in the world. Except for Bolivia, which recently authorized its use. "

Regarding the recommendation of these treatments by health professionals, Damin affirms that the fact that "there are doctors who use a substance that is not approved is

the first error

. We have the obligation to use drugs approved by the authority We cannot invent. Chlorine dioxide is not a new substance that we are testing. It is an old and known substance that causes harm. "

And he adds: "

The judge's ruling has no scientific basis.

We have no evidence that this is good and we have clear evidence that this is harmful." 

Gabriel Lapman, the head of the Sanatorio Modelo de Caseros, agrees with the toxicologist.

"He really does not have scientific evidence to support this type of treatment.

There is no committee that recommends it.

It is very discretionary of each professional. It exposes you to a situation of magical realism. A doctor cannot use a treatment that is not approved by any regulatory entity. This is a wish of the family. But it is a wish that a doctor has to do and does not have any kind of endorsement. It seems irrational. It should also go through an ethics committee. A judge does not have any medical knowledge ". 

Clarín

asked Lapman what he would do in a similar case: "If a document is signed, which eliminates the responsibility of the doctor for the treatment established by the family, it could be done. Because there is something called the 

principle of autonomy

, the which ensures that patients may or may not accept the treatment recommended by the doctor. However, it is not something that can be transferred to family members. " 

Lapman argues that this substance is not regulated as a drug and that the case "borders on the ridiculous."

"Chlorine dioxide is still a placebo," he concluded. 

The Canosa case

The chlorine dioxide controversy has been going on for months.

In August last year, in her television program, the host Viviana Canosa was shown taking a liquid from a bottle and assured that it was CDS, the acronym by which this substance is known.

"Stop prohibiting so much, because I can no longer disobey everything," said Canosa, and assured that chlorine dioxide "oxygenates the blood.

" "I do not recommend.

I show them what I do ”

, was his controversial phrase.

A few days later, a 5-year-old boy died in Neuquén after his parents supplied him with the product with the mistaken belief that it would protect him against Covid-19.

After this case, the television host

was denounced before the Buenos Aires Justice

for having publicly promoted the supposed benefits of the CDS.

Then, the ANMAT went out to warn about the risks of using chlorine dioxide.

In a statement on August 4, the health agency insisted that with their intake they "react quickly in human tissues" and can cause "irritation of the esophagus and stomach, abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea and severe poisoning, among others. complications that can include

serious hematological, cardiovascular and kidney disorders

”.

In addition, he warned that "inhalation can generate pulmonary edema, bronchospasm, chemical pneumonitis and glottis edema, among other respiratory complications such as chronic bronchitis and dental erosions, as well as complications in other organs of the body."

International organizations also warned about the use of the CDS.

The Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) recommended "

not to use products based on chlorine dioxide or sodium chlorite

orally or parenterally in patients with suspected or diagnosed Covid-19, or in any other case, because there is no evidence on their effectiveness and the ingestion or inhalation of these products could cause serious adverse effects ”.

ACE

Look also

A court ruling forced a clinic to treat a coronavirus patient with chlorine dioxide

The Government does not rule out applying a single dose of Sputnik V to reach 20 million vaccinated people in March