Doctor's suspended sentence upheld in colonoscopy death case

A doctor who perforated a patient's intestine during a routine colonoscopy and failed to provide proper discharge instructions — leading to the patient's death — has had a suspended sentence upheld on appeal.

The Suwon District Court's Fourth Criminal Division, presided over by Judge Kim Hui-seok, dismissed appeals by both the defendant and the prosecution Friday, upholding the original sentence of six months in prison, suspended for one year, against doctor A, who was indicted on charges of professional negligence resulting in death.

A was indicted after perforating the colon of a woman in her 50s, identified as B, during a colonoscopy at a general hospital in Danwon-gu, Ansan, on Oct. 15, 2021, and failing to provide adequate post-procedure care instructions, which led to her death.

The investigation found that A had misdirected the endoscope during insertion and applied excessive force, causing a perforation in a diverticular lesion — a pouch-like protrusion of the intestinal wall — in B's colon.

A subsequently performed a procedure to close the perforation and discharged B on Oct. 23 of that year.

Medical staff are obligated to instruct patients discharged after an intestinal perforation to go immediately to an emergency room if they experience symptoms such as abdominal pain or fever. The investigation found that A had failed to provide such guidance.

As a result, B experienced lower abdominal pain after discharge but did not suspect complications from the perforation and first visited an orthopedic clinic. She was transferred to a higher-level hospital only later and died on Nov. 7 of that year from septic shock caused by acute peritonitis.

The first-instance court sentenced A to six months in prison, suspended for one year, noting that "a grave outcome — the victim's death — resulted from the defendant's medical negligence," while also taking into account that A had no prior criminal record and had paid damages after a related civil judgment was finalized.

A appealed, arguing there had been no negligence during the colonoscopy, no breach of the duty to inform, and insufficient causal link to the death, but the appellate court rejected those arguments.

The appeals court said it could not conclude that A had fulfilled the duty to provide discharge instructions, pointing to the fact that B — lacking medical expertise — had first gone to an orthopedic clinic because she could not identify the cause of her pain at the time. The court added that the original sentence was not unreasonably harsh.

husn7@heraldcorp.com