EVENTS ON DECEMBER 29, 2024<\/strong>In the address, a male person reports for a 9-year-old child. In the continuation of the conversation, he says that the child has vomited multiple times, has a bloated stomach, is lying down and they cannot move her, and that she is literally unconscious. The doctor asked the caller if it was a boy or a girl, to which she received the answer that it was a girl, that he is her uncle, and that the girl was with them at a celebration and stayed overnight at his place, and now she is lying on the floor and cannot get up.<\/p>\n\n
The doctor further asked if the child had vomited, if she had diarrhea, or what she had from that. She receives the answer that they were together at the celebration, that she ate some pies, and that he doesn’t know what is happening. After this answer, the doctor concludes that she feels bad from that, to which the interlocutor says that he is not a doctor, that he is calling at five in the morning because a 9-year-old child is lying down. In the meantime, it can be heard that the doctor is communicating with someone in the 194 call center.<\/p>\n\n
She continues further by giving the answer that emergency services do not perform stomach lavage, that she probably poisoned herself with some food, and that in that case, one goes to Tir\u0161ova, and that emergency cannot help her at that moment, and that stomach lavage is needed. She said that she is not a child with special needs, that she has no other comorbidities, and that her condition was related to the food she ate, and that because of that she vomited, and to take her to Tir\u0161ova. To that answer, the caller asked how to take her, to which he received the answer by taxi, by car. In the continuation, the caller asks why emergency services exist, why money is taken from people, why taxes are paid to this state, and that conversation continued in a raised tone, using vulgar words, the caller asks if it would be the same if he were some ….. in the SNS, if that’s the trick, and if the child should die on the floor.<\/p>\n\n
The conversation continues with a male person (another doctor from the call center) in a calm tone, and the caller who previously spoke with the doctor continues in the same manner with the question of how to transport the child and says that he cannot move the child. The doctor starts the sentence with “well,” but the caller says that he has told everything to the colleague and again uses vulgar words in the same way that if he were some …. in the SNS, emergency would come, and like this, and again swears and states that emergency services did not want to come for his dead mother and again uses vulgarity and again repeats the question that if he were some …. in the SNS or some other party, they would come. The doctor at the end of the conversation responds in the same vulgar manner that he is that ….. with or without SNS.<\/p>\n\n
Commission’s Conclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n\n The conversation in the 194 call center was initially in a normal tone, when the caller reported the complaints and health condition for which he sought help and the dispatch of an emergency medical team. The doctor asked appropriate questions in order to, based on the anamnesis and data, draw a conclusion about what it was about, as well as whether to dispatch an emergency medical team. Based on the anamnesis, she concluded that the girl’s stomach complaints, for whom the caller called, arose as a consequence of food poisoning, so the child should be taken to Tir\u0161ova Hospital, that on-site assistance cannot significantly help, and that transport to the hospital is actually needed. Then a conflict arose, and the entire course of the conversation took on a bad tone, because the revolted interlocutor began to use vulgar words, mentioning the SNS party.<\/p>\n\n
The colleague then handed over the continuation of the conversation to her colleague, the doctor from the 194 call center, who tried to listen to what it was about, however, unfortunately, the interlocutor continued the conversation in the same tone with vulgar words, and that twice, so in the end the doctor responded with the same vulgar response.<\/p>\n\n
In the complaint submitted to the inspection of the Ministry of Health, it is mentioned that the clinical picture of the dying child was neglected and that an emergency vehicle was not dispatched and emergency medical assistance was not provided, as well as the audacity to insult the person who reports that the child is dying.<\/p>\n\n
The Commission cannot agree with such statements in any way.<\/p>\n\n
First, one cannot speak of a clinical picture here, because to establish that, all parameters related to the patient’s examination and objective patient status and diagnostics must be available, which is not the case here. Here, it is about anamnestic data on vomiting, bloated stomach, inability to move the child, and that she is almost unconscious. Also, it cannot be ignored that all these complaints arose after consuming food, which can strongly resemble alimentary intoxication with a more severe clinical picture, but it cannot be said that this is the clinical picture of a dying child. Transport to the hospital was necessary, but then a conflict arose.<\/p>\n\n
The complaint states that emergency services had the audacity to insult the caller, but it was actually the opposite, and anyone who listens to the mentioned conversation once can confirm that. The caller repeated vulgar words three times to the doctor and the doctor, so unfortunately, he directed the entire course of the conversation in the wrong direction, which is why we cannot determine with certainty whether, after the doctor’s consultation with the colleague who took over the conversation, an emergency team would have been dispatched to the scene. The doctor did not have much room for communication, and there the conversation ended in a bad tone, mutually.<\/p>\n\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n
And what really happened is revealed by the transcript of the conversation between the caller and emergency services. Its analysis shows the difference between the official version of events and what actually unfolded in those crucial minutes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Key Details from the Conversation Transcript<\/strong><\/h1>\n\n\n\nThe Call Begins with a Description of Serious Symptoms<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\nThe caller clearly states that the child is suffering severe abdominal pain, cannot move, and appears to be losing consciousness.
2. Refusal to Send a Team<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\nThe medical staff claims there is no need for a team to arrive and suggests transporting the child by private means.
3. Ignoring the Urgency of the Situation<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\nInstead of the doctor assessing the risk based on serious symptoms which, according to all global and European standards, classify this condition as top priority urgency, a blanket assessment is made that it’s probably poisoning. However, the question arises\u2014 isn’t poisoning, especially in a child, an emergency medical condition that requires a quick reaction and the arrival of an emergency team?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Although the internal control report claims that communication was difficult due to the caller’s emotional tone, the transcript clearly shows that the caller was persistent but not rude\u2014frustration only arose after repeated refusals of help.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
4. Escalation and Termination of the Conversation<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\nAfter multiple attempts to convince emergency services to respond, realizing he wouldn’t get help for the dying child, the caller becomes increasingly distressed.\n5. Key Contradictions Between the Transcript and the Internal Control Report<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\nThe report claims:<\/strong> That the medical staff assessed there was no need for emergency intervention.The transcript shows:<\/strong> That the symptoms were serious and the caller clearly emphasized that the child could not move.<\/p>\n\n\n\nThe report claims:<\/strong> That the medical staff provided adequate advice.The transcript shows:<\/strong> That the advice was impractical and unrealistic given the patient’s condition.<\/p>\n\n\n\nThe report claims:<\/strong> That the problem arose due to the caller’s emotional reaction.The transcript shows:<\/strong> That the caller’s frustration only occurred after multiple refusals of help and unprofessional communication from the doctors.<\/p>\n\n\n\nViolation of Procedures and Decisions Without Consultations<\/strong><\/h1>\n\n\n\nAccording to work procedures, the doctor is obligated in situations where they are unsure of the assessment to transfer the call to the shift coordinator or the chief.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In this specific case, the doctor did not follow this procedure. Instead of consulting with a superior, the call was transferred to another doctor without prior joint assessment. The decision not to send a team had already been made, according to the transcript, indicating that the consultation with the colleague wasn’t even aimed at reevaluating the decision, but merely to formally end the conversation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
However, the internal control states: “The caller directed the conversation in a bad direction with his behavior, which is why it cannot be determined with certainty whether a team would have been dispatched after consultation with the colleague.” This claim suggests that the blame for not sending the team is shifted to the caller, while omitting the fact that the caller was advised to transport the child by car or taxi, that serious symptoms were ignored, and that consultation with the coordinator or chief wasn’t even attempted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Composition of the Commission and Conflict of Interest<\/strong><\/h1>\n\n\n\nAdditional doubt about the credibility of the internal control report is raised by the composition of the commission that prepared it. Key members of the commission were:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\nThe chief and shift coordinator in which the doctor worked\u2014directly responsible for her work and actions.<\/li>\n\n\n\n The call center chief\u2014a person hierarchically responsible for the overall operation of the emergency call center.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\nSuch a composition of the commission opens a serious question of conflict of interest. How can an objective analysis of the doctors’ actions be expected when responsibility is decided within the chain of command directly accountable for the system’s functioning? Instead of an independent investigation, this ensures the system protects itself, downplaying its own mistakes and shifting responsibility onto citizens.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
When the Right to Help Becomes a Privilege<\/strong><\/h1>\n\n\n\nThis case raises a serious question\u2014why must families fight battles for something that is a basic human right? How is it possible that, despite obvious manipulations and violations of the law, the system remains powerless to protect citizens and provide justice to those who have lost their loved ones?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Instead of protecting its citizens, the system accepts reports that justify such failures, ignoring the growing number of those who died because emergency aid didn’t give them a chance to survive.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This isn’t just a procedural problem\u2014this is a problem of basic human rights. When the system allows such cases to be covered up, it sends a message that citizens’ lives are not a priority, but insignificant items in the bureaucratic machinery. If nothing changes, how many more families will have to go through this agony before justice is finally established?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
How is it possible that emergency services have enough teams and vehicles for every commercial duty, but when it comes to our future\u2014a child that needs saving\u2014the system suddenly lacks resources? Aren’t the lives of citizens, especially children, the priority of a system funded by public money?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
She Was a Child!<\/strong><\/h1>\n\n\n\nShe was only nine years old. She dreamed the dreams all children dream, waiting for Santa Claus who was supposed to come in two days. Instead of holiday joy, she faced agony\u2014abdominal pain so severe she couldn’t move. She lay on the floor while her uncle desperately tried to get help.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Emergency services were called at five in the morning. Instead of a quick response and medical care, the caller received a bureaucratic answer: “Take her yourself.” How? The girl couldn’t stand, she was barely conscious. But the system wasn’t interested in a solution\u2014only in refusing responsibility.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This is a crime and not an isolated case. Refusing to send a team is becoming the rule, not the exception. When a call for help becomes a battle against administration instead of a race for life, the basic purpose of emergency medical services is lost. Who decides who deserves a chance to survive? Who takes responsibility when a child is left without help?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This tragedy is not just a family one, but a societal one. If we don’t ensure that emergency aid truly helps, such cases will repeat. And the cost will always be a human life.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Inconsistency of Laws and Absence of Bylaws: A System in Legal Vacuum<\/strong><\/h1>\n\n\n\nArticle 62 of the Law on Health Care clearly prescribes that a health institution is obligated to provide emergency medical aid to all citizens, in accordance with the law. However, the law, although defined in general terms, requires concretization through bylaws that regulate the organization of emergency medical services, as stipulated in Article 83, Paragraph 4 of the same law. According to Article 261, Paragraph 4, these acts had to be adopted within 18 months of the law’s adoption in 2019, but to this day, they have not been passed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Due to this legal vacuum, it is not clearly defined what exactly “providing emergency medical aid in accordance with the law” entails, leaving room for arbitrary interpretations and practices that lead to unequal treatment of patients. The emergency medical system thus operates without clear standards, allowing failures, such as inadequate responses to emergency calls, to be justified by the lack of rules.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Failure in Emergency Transport: Unfulfilled Legal Obligations Toward the Insured<\/strong><\/h1>\n\n\n\nArticle 55 of the Law on Health Insurance specifies that sick or injured insured persons must be provided with emergency medical aid and urgent sanitary transport in cases of illnesses or injuries that are life-threatening. Nevertheless, due to the absence of concrete protocols, health workers and institutions often decide whether to provide help based on personal assessment, rather than clearly defined rules.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Rulebook on the Manner of Exercising Rights from Compulsory Health Insurance further indicates that the use of sanitary vehicles is determined by doctors in accordance with the law and the rulebook. However, due to the absence of bylaws, no rulebook provides sufficiently precise guidelines to ensure equal treatment in cases of emergency transport, which directly endangers the rights of insured persons.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Legal Vacuum as a Direct Cause of Unequal Treatment<\/strong><\/h1>\n\n\n\nIf the articles of the law and rulebooks are analyzed as a whole, the conclusion is that the state has failed to establish mechanisms that would ensure equal provision of emergency medical aid and sanitary transport.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
For example, Article 54 of the Law on Health Insurance shifts the responsibility for costs to insured persons in the case of an “unjustified request,” but nowhere is it clearly defined what constitutes a justified or unjustified request. This deprives insured persons of legal certainty, while allowing health institutions to arbitrarily decide on emergency cases.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Legal Vacuum and Bureaucratic Failures Leave Families Alone<\/strong><\/h1>\n\n\n\nThrough this legal gap slip all cases of deaths caused by the inaction of emergency services\u2014without sanctions or responsibility. Families who have lost their loved ones are left alone in the fight for justice, while the system remains unaccountable for its failures. Without clear rules and bylaws, there is no way to standardize the work of emergency services and ensure the protection of all citizens’ rights.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Meri Movement Takes Concrete Steps<\/strong><\/h1>\n\n\n\nIf urgent steps are not taken to resolve such problems and the responsible parties are not sanctioned, the Meri Movement will, in collaboration with dozens of citizens who have reported similar cases, file a collective lawsuit against the state of Serbia and the Ministry of Health for non-compliance with the law and the failure to adopt bylaws. The goal is to establish clear standards in providing emergency medical aid and transport, to prevent further failures and ensure equal treatment for all citizens.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
If nothing changes, the question is not whether such cases will repeat, but how many more families will have to endure this agony before justice is finally established.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Once again, the system has failed. Once again, a chance to save another life has been missed\u2014this time, a life that had only just begun. A child was left without help when it was needed most, another family shattered by the negligence of those whose job it is to respond. This wasn’t a string of […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":3224,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_eb_attr":"","_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"","ast-site-content-layout":"default","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"set","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"footnotes":""},"categories":[48],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3221","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-english"],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/pokretmeri.org.rs\/home\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3221","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/pokretmeri.org.rs\/home\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/pokretmeri.org.rs\/home\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pokretmeri.org.rs\/home\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pokretmeri.org.rs\/home\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3221"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/pokretmeri.org.rs\/home\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3221\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3223,"href":"https:\/\/pokretmeri.org.rs\/home\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3221\/revisions\/3223"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pokretmeri.org.rs\/home\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/3224"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/pokretmeri.org.rs\/home\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3221"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pokretmeri.org.rs\/home\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3221"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pokretmeri.org.rs\/home\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3221"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}