The Public Prosecution Service (OM) sees it as a major setback that Theodoor V.’s medical file remains closed. Due to the decision of the court in Assen, the Public Prosecution Service thinks it is missing important information.
According to the Public Prosecution Service, V. has said several times to GGZ Drenthe care providers that he had prematurely ended the lives of twenty patients in the hospital. He allegedly performed medical procedures on patients he believed to be terminally ill and suffering without a doctor’s instructions.
GGZ Drenthe informed the Board of Directors of the WZA of the statements made by the suspect. But V.’s medical file keeps the institution under lock and key. And rightly so, according to the court. The file is not expected to contain any other or new information that is “so crucial” that it should be shared, the judge said.
The OM thinks otherwise. “That information is important to be able to continue the investigation properly. This decision of the court does not make it any easier,” said press officer Jan Hoekman. “It is now the case that the suspect denies that he committed the facts. We have to investigate further, including what he said to the GGZ, and we are not getting that information now.”
GGZ Drenthe had itself broken the confidentiality obligation by sending a letter to the Board of Directors of the WZA. The police have heard these aid workers as witnesses and the duty of confidentiality has also been broken, the court concludes. The Public Prosecution Service should therefore have sufficient information to conduct further investigations into the alleged criminal offences.
“The GGZ was ultimately the authority that made the report and therefore broke the confidentiality obligation at some point. But of course they are also the care provider of the suspect,” Hoekman realizes the split of GGZ Drenthe. “Ultimately it is up to the confidentiality holder to determine whether he wants to break his confidentiality and how often. Now the GGZ has apparently drawn a line and of course they have that right.”
The Public Prosecution Service is still considering whether it wants to appeal the court’s decision. “That is something we are thinking about. But then we will take a closer look at what exactly the court has considered.”