Member of Health Commission of Chamber of Deputies said: Either Ministry of Health Should Complain to the General Prosecutor [GP] or the GP Should Act

On 6th of August, MP Sorin Paveliu declared in an interview given to BBC that either Ministry of Health should complain to the General Prosecutor [GP] or the GP should act in his own right.

The law is clear. It can not be claimed that the Patriarch was informed and gave his consent unless there is a document signed by him, and that is according to the law. In short, any medical intervention without IFORMED CONSENT is illegal, no mater how old was the pacient or how many are claiming that the Patriarch was was informed verbally.

On the same line, the corp handeling after death was done also with many infringements of the legislation, subject to one to three years conviction in prison. There is no hospital exit documentation, no family member or legally entrusted person was called to sign the exit procedure, no trace and documentation on embalming procedure or information regarding the place where the embalming was done, if it was done in the hospital or at the Patriarchate [given the fact that after three hours of death acertain (17:00) the Patriarch corp exit the hospital and at 9:00 was brought to the Patriarchal Cathedral]. According to this timing, it means that the legal regulations on time between death and embalment was not respected at all if it was done in the hospital. If it was done after the hospital it was done also without documentation procedure, there is no identity on the embalment service provider and if it was authorized or not for embalming procedure. The embalming substance is not known also if it was done with or without presevation of organs.

Shortly speaking MP Sorin Paveliu, who is a Medical Doctor by profession, stress to BBC that the Prosecutors should act.

Personal Medicine Doctor of Patriarch Teoctist Accuses Surgeon Sinescu of Malpractice

The personal doctor of Patriarch Teoctist, M.D. Nicoale Ursea, blames the doctors team who performed the prostate surgery. Ursea said that the general anesthesia was not necessary, especially in this case of laparoscopic intervention. But more than that, he said that the prostate intervention was not necessary. Ursea says that the Patriarch suffered only from a severe urinary infection that first had to be treated and than make investigations on prostate illness. MD Ursea and also other doctors are claiming that the general procedure for surgery under anesthesia of a 92-year old were not at all followed, the 1 to 7 days of pre-surgery preparations was not through. Other MD said forthrightly that from the time of his entry and registration in the hospital, Sunday evening around 6:00 PM, until the surgery begun, Monday morning 10:00 AM, there was not even time to have the all blood analysis results.

A commission has been formed in the College of Medicine Doctors for investigating the actions took by and the performance of Prof. Dr. Ionel Sinescu, the doctor who did the surgery. The State Secretariate of Health will also conduct an administrative investigation on this case.