Serbian Prime Minister Djuro Macut is under investigation for the death of a patient. The case began after a complaint was filed in 2019, while he was head of the department at the Endocrinology Clinic. This was reported by the Serbian investigative portal Krik, as reported by BGNES.

The complaint was filed against Macut and a group of doctors by Dragan Stevanovic, the husband of the deceased, because they did not obtain her written consent for the risky intervention to which she was subjected, which they were legally obliged to do.

The case is pending before the Constitutional Court, which, however, has not taken a decision for five years. During its meeting in March this year, the Constitutional Court announced that it needed more time to gather "additional considerations."

When Djuro Macut became head of the Endocrinology Clinic in 2019, one of the things he introduced, according to one of his colleagues, was that doctors had to obtain written consent from patients for the procedures they were undergoing.

This is a document in which the patient is clearly informed of all possible complications of the treatment and agrees to them by signing. The Patient Rights Act also stipulates that it is "necessary" for doctors to obtain "written consent" for more serious interventions.

"No medical measure may be taken against a patient without their consent," the law states.

However, after Daniela Stevanovic, who was being treated for a rare type of tumor in Macut's department, died, her husband gathered all her medical records—and found no consent from Daniela for the risky intervention she had undergone.

As a result, a month after her death, in May 2019, Dragan Stevanovic filed a criminal complaint with the Belgrade prosecutor's office and brought a civil suit. He filed a criminal complaint against Matsut and four other doctors who treated his wife at the Clinical Center of Serbia.

During the proceedings, Macut and the doctors claimed that they had done everything in accordance with the law.

Although there was no written consent, they stated that they had informed the patient verbally of all complications that could arise during treatment. Macut also claimed that it was sufficient for the patient's signature to be on another document—the medical record.

However, Macut's then-colleague gave a different statement in one of the proceedings, claiming that the patient's signature on the medical record did not refer to the therapy, but was simply her consent to be discharged for the weekend.

She also notes that it was Macut who introduced the rule of mandatory written consent in their department. Experts interviewed by CRIC journalists also say that the signature on the medical record cannot be considered as the patient's written consent to intervention.

However, prosecutor Jovana Dmitrovic dismissed the criminal complaint in March 2020. Stevanovic filed an appeal with the High Prosecutor's Office, which rejected it the same year, after which he turned to the Constitutional Court, which has not yet ruled on the case.

"I can write an urgent letter, even though it is often said that they have a backlog of cases, but five years of waiting is not normal. I want an answer. After the Constitutional Court's decision, there is a possibility for further action, I can appeal to the court in Strasbourg," said the husband of the deceased patient.

World-renowned skin cancer expert and surgeon Dr. Marco Lens says that the patient's signature is mandatory when performing interventions.

"The patient must give consent for any type of intervention. If it is any type of intervention, this informed consent must include an explanation of what the procedure is, what the benefits of the procedure are, but also the risks it carries," said Lens. I BGNES