Doctor Receives Suspended Sentence in Fatal Colonoscopy Complication Case

A doctor has received a suspended prison sentence in a retrial concerning the death of a 50-year-old patient who suffered septic shock following a colonoscopy. The incident occurred in October 2021 when the physician, identified as A, caused a small perforation in the patient's intestine during the procedure at a hospital in Gyeonggi Province.

While Dr. A performed a clip closure on the perforation, the patient, identified as B, was discharged on October 23rd. The prosecution alleged that Dr. A failed to provide adequate guidance and instructions regarding the management of potential complications, such as peritonitis, stemming from the intestinal perforation. Six days after his discharge, the patient experienced severe abdominal pain and fever, leading to his re-admission to the hospital. He was subsequently transferred to a higher-level medical facility, where he ultimately succumbed to septic shock, a condition triggered by peritonitis resulting from the perforation.

“

Given that the defendant's negligence caused the perforation in the victim, there was a separate obligation to provide explanations about post-discharge sequelae when the victim was discharged.

The first trial found a causal relationship between Dr. A's professional negligence and the patient's death, resulting in a sentence of six months imprisonment suspended for one year. Both Dr. A and the prosecution appealed the ruling. Dr. A cited factual errors, legal misinterpretations, and sentencing disparities, while the prosecution argued solely on the grounds of sentencing disparity.

However, the appellate court dismissed both appeals, upholding the original verdict. The court acknowledged that while the patient had signed a pre-printed consent form detailing potential complications, Dr. A still had a duty to provide specific explanations about post-discharge complications, given that the perforation was caused by his actions. The court referenced a medical expert's opinion in a related civil case, suggesting that timely hospitalization upon the onset of fever symptoms could have potentially delayed or prevented the progression to septic shock. Consequently, the court affirmed the causal link between the doctor's negligence in causing the perforation and failing to fulfill his duty of care in providing guidance, and the patient's subsequent death. The appellate court stated that the original trial adequately considered all arguments from both sides and found no new circumstances warranting a change in the sentence.

“

The medical expert opined that if the victim had visited a medical institution immediately upon showing symptoms of fever, it might have been possible to delay or prevent the progression to septic shock.