by ACN�,�February 3, 2013 at 11:15�|�This information is originally going to be published on�February 3, 2013Therefore, the information that appears refers to the specified data.

Jorge Enrique VM shows the dit that they are going to operate by mistake Photo: ACN

A simple operation for an injury carried out in one day will end with another operation and a surgeon who does not admit the error and which he will justify because the person was not there and that he had also had to operate. The case will be brought to trial properly and the Terrassa hospital's defendant faces two years of imprisonment, four disqualifications and 16,500 euros in compensation for a crime of serious recklessness. The patient carried the mother's petit dit with a splint, but when he goes out of the operating room he will see that the operation of the dit index of the material has taken place and he will claim that the operation of the dit that he veritably needs, as he will explain to the ACN in some months.

On May 9, 2010, Jorge Enrique VM will have a small domestic accident that will cause injuries to the small boy. L'endem�, at the urging of the Terrassa hospital, they are going to pose a splint. After some progress, he will be scheduled for surgery on May 25. Local anesthesia was applied to the entire bra and he would not be able to see the operation directly, but he was completely conscious and woke up. When the van treure of the operating room sees that he has operated on a dit that he did not touch. It is going to take the infermers and they will return to the operating room, here it is, the van will operate on the dit petit.

At the end of the day, according to the responsible person, he will visit the room if he is recovering from the operation. The man who is going to operate is not going to admit the error, but is going to justify it, knowing that the dit index was "lax" and was also able to operate. In canvi, the director of traumatology will admit the error and will tell the patient that they will send him a letter of apology. The surprise will come when the center's letter again indicates the error and justifies the medical action. Asked by the ACN shortly after the holidays, the management of the center will not make any statements about the case.

The patient's advocate, borja masramon, ja going to explain in April 2011 that "a bull passat, pot fer gr�cia, per� �s molt greu, �s a blunder, so the metge, according to the mateix criteri �could haver-li operat el cor o extret un rony��. Furthermore, according to him, the doctor's excuse was not worth it because the patient was already being transported outside the operating room and the surgeon had not planned to operate on him.

The mateix argument will serve the effect, which will explain on the second day that the metges li haurien d'haver demand perm�s expr�s per opera-lo of an unforeseen thing. It is also worth noting that in the center's letter it goes up to say that it was he who had done all the work that had done the operation, which does not prove that he followed his responsibility, and menys faces how he was at the table of operations. Furthermore, it will be remembered that the person who was going to operate had a rule and that at the same time he did not have res.

�Professionals are not machines, they are humans, everyone makes mistakes, but to avoid them there are assurances. But when someone makes a mistake, they have to admit the blame, Masramon will explain, who will affirm that "this man is very noble and only volia apologizes, but he is sorry." "Fets like these cannot go unpunished," the patient will complain.

Now, the private accusation accuses the surgeon, Joan Enric BM, of 57 years and condemned in 2000 for the crime, of not having informed the patient that he was going to operate in another way. He also reproaches the metge for having given a "rocambolesque" explanation and trying to cover up the nyap, in addition to not having checked the clinical history, not having examined the patient's relatives after the operation and not having asked three questions.

On the other hand, the prosecutor's office considers that the metge is going to "disregard the most basic standards of care" and also considers that he is committing a crime of injuries due to gross negligence. Tot i aix�, it demands a penalty much lower than that of the private accusation: four months of imprisonment, two years of disqualification and 1,000 euros of compensation.