A general practitioner acted carelessly in the reporting of the death of Helmond patient Suzanne de Vries in prison Ter Peel in Evertsoord in Limburg. The Central Disciplinary Court for Healthcare judges this. The complaint from the relatives has been declared well -founded, but there are no measures against the doctor.
The case revolves around the death of Suzanne de Vries (32) on March 24, 2022. The Helmond mother of three young children was found dead that morning around seven in her cell in Evertsoord. She sat out a seven -year -old punishment after she had killed her boyfriend with a hammer after years of humiliations and abuse.
Among other things, she had morphine against back and cluster headache, while she was just kicked from a morphine addiction. In total she took 24 different medicines. According to her family, she was very often drowsy, which probably contributed to disturbed breathing and an oxygen deficiency.
Mistrust
The doctor who made the wrong notes worked in the design two days a week at that time, but was not her regular practitioner. After her death, he noted in the medical system with ‘subjective’ what he heard from others about her death. For example, he wrote that she was sitting on a chair, but also that she was leaning in a puddle of blood. That conflicting information led to distrust among the relatives.
The doctor stated that he based that information on stories from colleagues, but did not mention any specific names. He himself had not seen the body of De Vries because the department was closed because of the investigation. In the emotional chaos of that morning he wanted to adjust the comments later, but he forgot that. The registration only took place the day after. He acknowledged that his report should have been clearer and that he should have mentioned that it was information from third parties.
Remarkable
Lawyer Johan Oosterhagen who assists the family finds it remarkable that the doctor could not remember who he had the information exactly. The doctor continues to point to others. “But fellow doctors have not seen it and also the enclosed prisoners. There are few people who have seen it. That does not make his story very credible.”
Although the Regional Disciplinary Court declared the complaint unfounded last November, the Central Disciplinary Court now judges differently. The doctor should have correct the mistakes as soon as it became clear that they were not correct. That he did not do this is ‘careless’ and results in a disciplinary reproach.
No measure
However, the Central Disciplinary Court does not impose a measure. The error is bad, but not serious enough to impose a formal sanction, such as a warning or reprimand. Because the complaint has been declared well -founded, the relatives will in any case receive recognition for their objection. The father of Suzanne de Vries, who filed the complaint, receives his paid court fee of 100 euros.
“This is an important part of recognition for the family. It is very nice that the doctor has now been called to account,” says Oosterhagen. The fact that the doctor still does not say whose information makes him an unsatisfactory feeling with the family. “That is disappointing.” He thinks it is a shame that the doctor does not take his responsibility. “Because we think he knows. I can imagine that this will get a tail.”
Earlier we made this video about the case:
Documentary maker Jessica Villerius made an episode for her series ‘Double’ about the death of De Vries. This can be seen on NPO3 on 26 June at 8.20 pm.