'They're supposed to take an oath': Barrera's mother questions Ethics Tribunal's rejection of complaint

Rosario Barrera has sharply criticized the Medical Ethics Tribunal after it rejected the terms of her complaint against Public Health Minister Cristina Lustemberg. Barrera accuses Lustemberg of improperly reducing a penalty for an anesthesiologist involved in the death of Barrera's daughter, Soledad, in August 2024 due to confirmed medical malpractice.

"You are supposed to take an oath," Barrera responded via email to the tribunal, part of the College of Physicians of Uruguay. "And a doctor who kills a patient, in this case my daughter, due to negligence, and declared herself guilty, isn't another doctor, in this case the minister, complicit for lowering the penalty she was given?" Barrera questioned.

This refers to Lustemberg's decision months prior to reduce the administrative penalty against anesthesiologist Inés Miralles, who was convicted in criminal court, from five years of medical practice suspension to three. Barrera's complaint centered on this decision, which the tribunal deemed unclear. The tribunal stated that to assume jurisdiction, the complaint must precisely indicate the specific facts that constitute ethical breaches.

Barrera's legal team issued a public letter asserting that the College of Physicians should have thoroughly reviewed the complaint and provided a clear explanation for its rejection. The letter argued that Barrera's complaint was extensive, well-founded, and documented, identifying the accused doctor, detailing the questioned conduct, citing ethical codes, and offering evidence.

The complaint also noted the lack of further intervention from the Honorary Commission on Public Health, whose members resigned previously due to dissatisfaction with the penalty reduction. Additionally, it pointed to potential omissions of relevant information to Parliament regarding the Ministry of Public Health's actions before the Administrative Litigation Tribunal, public statements made about the case, and the failure to consider institutional precedents before reducing the sanction.

“

You are supposed to take an oath. And a doctor who kills a patient, in this case my daughter, due to negligence, and declared herself guilty, isn't another doctor, in this case the minister, complicit for lowering the penalty she was given?