Baby fatally stabbed deeply with injection needle... Doctor fined for writing 'natural death' on death certificate

Infant with Acute Leukemia Symptoms Dies During Bone Marrow Extraction After 6 Months
Death Classified as 'Natural Causes', Cause Recorded as 'Respiratory Arrest'
Court Suspects Intent to Conceal Medical Accident
Two Doctors Fined 5 Million and 300 Thousand Won Respectively

Two doctors were fined for falsifying the death certificate of an infant who died during a bone marrow extraction procedure on the 15th.

[Asia Economy Intern Reporter Kim Bong-ju] Two doctors were fined for falsifying the death certificate of an infant who died during a bone marrow extraction procedure.

On the 15th, the Ulsan District Court Criminal Division 2 (Judge Yoo Jung-woo) announced that it sentenced Professor A (65), a pediatrician at a university hospital, to a fine of 5 million KRW and resident B (32) to a fine of 3 million KRW for the charge of falsifying a death certificate.

The defendants were responsible for the bone marrow extraction of a 6-month-old infant measuring 67 cm in height and weighing 9.1 kg on October 21, 2015.

The infant was diagnosed with pancytopenia, a condition characterized by a simultaneous decrease in platelets, white blood cells, and red blood cells, and thus underwent a bone marrow examination.

B, a third-year resident at the time, attempted the bone marrow extraction while administering sedative anesthesia as the infant cried and fussed, but failed several times.

Subsequently, second-year resident C and others succeeded in extracting the bone marrow after multiple attempts.

However, after the bone marrow extraction, the infant showed symptoms of decreased oxygen saturation and vital signs and eventually died.

Autopsy later revealed that "C pierced the artery deeply with the needle during the bone marrow extraction, causing arterial rupture and death due to hypovolemic shock."

Nevertheless, A and B wrote the cause of death as "natural death," the immediate cause as "respiratory arrest," and the intermediate cause as "pancytopenia" on the death certificate.

The prosecution charged the defendants, stating that the cause of death should have been recorded as "external cause" or "other and unspecified," that the immediate cause could not be recorded as "heart attack" or "respiratory failure," and that pancytopenia was not the direct cause of respiratory arrest.

During the trial, the defendants stated, "We believed the cause of death was due to side effects of the sedative, and we were unaware that bleeding from arterial rupture was the cause," and added, "There was no reason to falsify the death certificate to hide the cause of death, especially since the family was expected to copy medical records and anticipate an autopsy, indicating a potential legal dispute."

The court stated, "Even if the defendants did not know the result of bleeding caused by arterial rupture, it is clear that they recognized the victim did not die from a pre-existing condition," and added, "The cause of death on the death certificate should have been written as 'unknown,' and the type of death as 'external cause' or 'other,' but it was written falsely, indicating intent on the part of the defendants."

The court further explained the sentencing, saying, "Medical certificates written by doctors are highly trusted in society and have significant influence on investigations and trials, so their truthfulness and reliability must be guaranteed," and "The defendants' actions are sufficiently suspected to have been intended to conceal the cause of the medical accident, which appears to have caused additional wounds to the bereaved family."

A and B were also charged with professional negligence resulting in death, but the court acquitted them of this charge.

The prosecution charged A with failing to properly supervise B and C during the bone marrow extraction procedure, and charged B with failing to prepare for a blood transfusion in advance and failing to check the victim's bleeding after the procedure.

The court explained, "It is reasonable to consider that the victim's arterial rupture occurred during C's bone marrow extraction procedure, but it is difficult to hold A and B criminally responsible as co-perpetrators for C's procedural negligence," and added, "Based on the evidence submitted by the prosecution, it is difficult to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that the defendants were professionally negligent."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.