The alleged victim is said to have first read about the case in the media - only to be told a few months later by police that it was him the teenage girl was said to have helped operate on.

An Austrian surgeon allegedly let his teenage daughter drill a hole in a patient’s skull.

Following a forestry accident in January, a 33-year-old man was flown by air ambulance to Graz University Hospital, Styria, southeastern Austria, with serious head injuries, according to Kronen Zeitung, an Austrian newspaper.

He needed emergency surgery, but the doctor allegedly let his 13-year-old daughter take part in operating on him.

The newspaper reported that she even drilled a hole in the patient’s skull.

While the operation was said to have gone off without issue, the patient is still unable to work and investigations by the Graz public prosecutor’s officer against the entire surgical team are continuing.

It wasn’t until April that an anonymous complaint was logged to the public prosecutor’s office about the allegations, the newspaper reported.

The alleged victim initially learned about the case in the media before later being told by authorities he was a witness in an investigation.

  • KazumaraEnglish
    1·
    4 months ago

    I think that’s an entirely wrong starting point. Operating on a person without their informed consent is bodily harm. You have to prove the patient agreed. (Ignoring for the moment situations where they can’t.)

    The patient never agreed to a surgery in part performed by that kid, but to one performed entirely by trained professionals.

    • ColeSlothEnglish
      1·
      4 months ago

      But there was no bodily harm. If the procedure had failed or an infection happened there would be, but from the light bit of info in the article, the procedure was successful. No damages incurred due to the 13 year olds involvement.

      • KazumaraEnglish
        2·
        4 months ago

        But there was no bodily harm.

        Opening up the patient - by itself - is bodily harm (“Körperverletzung”) already. It is only legal in the context of consent, and that consent only carries any weight if it was informed. Even if nothing goes wrong and no damages occur the lack of informed consent makes the act illegal.

        This is probably https://gesetzefinden.at/bundesrecht/bundesgesetze/stgb/para-83 by the child, who is too young to be tried or punished, but should be https://gesetzefinden.at/bundesrecht/bundesgesetze/stgb/para-282 by the mother.

        Maybe https://gesetzefinden.at/bundesrecht/bundesgesetze/stgb/para-110 is also relevant, if we assume the deficient consent also has consequences for the other medical treatment that occured from other people in the room.

        • ColeSlothEnglish
          1·
          4 months ago

          Life saving emergencies constitute implied consent. It doesn’t actually need to be given beforehand if it’s to save/help someone who can’t currently make a choice.

          • KazumaraEnglish
            1·
            4 months ago

            Okay, sorry, I didn’t realize this wasn’t a scheduled surgery, I only read the German article from the comments.

            Yes there is the concept of implied consent for those cases where a patient can’t make his will known. But in those cases you have to act along the presumed will of the patient. That will of the patient would regularily be presumed to contain the lege artis, at least in a setting where the hospital has been reached already and the option was available. So that again precludes untrained people participating in my view.