Violation of the Right to Life Due to Inadequate Health Services
Incidents
Violation of the Right to Life Due to Inadequate Health ServicesWhile BK and AK (brothers), the sons of applicants Ali Karakılıç and Songül Karakılıç and the brothers of Cengizhan Karakılıç, were alone in their home, a fire broke out.hile BK and AK (brothers), the sons of applicants Ali Karakılıç and Songül Karakılıç and the brothers of Cengizhan Karakılıç, were alone in their home, a fire broke out. Fire crews arrived at the scene extinguished the fire and airlifted two brothers who had suffered a heart attack (respiratory and circulatory failure) to the state hospital.
As a result of CPR (Heart-Lung Resuscitation), the brothers’ heartbeats returned to normal and they were referred to the university faculty of medicine hospital. As a result of the evaluation, it was determined that the brothers’ conditions were serious and that they needed to be transferred to another center for further treatment (hyperbaric oxygen therapy), but a hospital that could accept them could not be found.s a result of the evaluation, it was determined that the brothers’ conditions were serious and that they needed to be transferred to another center for further treatment (hyperbaric oxygen therapy), but a hospital that could accept them could not be found.
The applicants transferred their children to a private health center in another province that does not have an intensive care unit but has the possibility of hyperbaric oxygen therapy. Brother AK lost his life by not responding to the treatments applied at the health center, while BK was referred to different hospitals but lost his life by not responding to the treatment process. In the investigation initiated by the Ministry of Health after the deaths, it was concluded that there was no negligence on the part of the medical personnel involved in the treatment process or during the transplant.
The lawsuit filed at the administrative court on grounds of negligence was rejected on the merits and the decision was finalized.In the investigation initiated by the Ministry of Health after the deaths, it was concluded that there was no negligence on the part of the medical personnel involved in the treatment process or during the transplant. lawsuit filed at the administrative court on grounds of negligence was rejected on the merits and the decision was finalized.
The Allegations
Applicants alleged that the right to life was violated due to the failure to provide the necessary protection during medical intervention to the children who were injured in the fire and died afterwards.
The Court’s Assessment
In the concrete case, the applicants alleged that their children who were affected /poisoned by smoke as a result of the fire lost their lives as a result of disruptions in the general treatment process, that their children could not receive the necessary treatment as a result of the disruption of health services (from Samsun to Ankara) and were transported between hospitals by Decently equipped ambulances.n the concrete case, the applicants alleged that their children who were affected /poisoned by smoke as a result of the fire lost their lives as a result of disruptions in the general treatment process, that their children could not receive the necessary treatment as a result of the disruption of health services (from Samsun to Ankara) and were transported between hospitals by Decently equipped ambulances. They filed a full-fledged lawsuit, naming the Ministry of Health as the defendant.
During the trial process, when the expert report requested by the court from the Forensic Medicine Institute was examined, it was seen that the investigation was limited to the health services provided in Samsun and that the evaluation was made only in terms of AK. Despite the applicants’ claim that the incident was not adequately clarified, the court found the expert report sufficient and based its decisionuring the trial process, when the expert report requested by the court from the Forensic Medicine Institute was examined, it was seen that the investigation was limited to the health services provided in Samsun and that the evaluation was made only in terms of AK.
Despite the applicants’ claim that the incident was not adequately clarified, the court found the expert report sufficient and based its decision on it. However, the applicants claimed that the treatment process was not limited to Samsun, but also extended to Ankara; They complained about the transfer by an insufficiently equipped ambulance, the failure of the 112 Emergency Department to provide an ambulance, and the fact that hospitals in Ankara do not accept their children. It is understood that the Court did not make an assessment of the issues raised by the applicants.
In the light of all these determinations, in the context of the state’s positive obligations under the right to life, Article 17 of the Constitution provides for the establishment of legal responsibility in the process that led to the death of two children.n the light of all these determinations, in the context of the state’s positive obligations under the right to life, Article 17 of the Constitution provides for the establishment of legal responsibility in the process that led to the death of two children. it was concluded that an investigation was not carried out with the depth, care and speed provided for in the article, as a result of which the positive obligations of the state (procedural obligation) were not fulfilled as required and, in this respect, the right to life was violated.
Since the effective investigation obligation that the state should fulfill within the scope of the right to life has not been fulfilled as required, all the circumstances under which the incident occurred have not been clearly revealed, and therefore claims that are not subject to the court’s assessment (for example, the 112 Emergency Department does not provide ambulances, hospitals in Ankara do not accept children, etc.nce the effective investigation obligation that the state should fulfill within the scope of the right to life has not been fulfilled as required, all the circumstances under which the incident occurred have not been clearly revealed,
and therefore claims that are not subject to the court’s assessment (for example, the 112 Emergency Department does not provide ambulances, hospitals in Ankara do not accept children, etc.) it is not possible to determine whether it can be evaluated, in other words, whether the requirements of the protection obligation have been fulfilled.
In this context, since the Court has not clearly assessed whether the state has fulfilled its obligation to protect throughout the entire process, it is not possible to assess the material (protective) dimension of the right to life at this stage.his context, since the Court has not clearly assessed whether the state has fulfilled its obligation to protect througho