Post by account_disabled on Mar 9, 2024 4:43:37 GMT 1
The Association for the Defense of Public Health, ACDESA-Castelló, has denounced the decision of the Contentious-Administrative Court No. 1 of Castelló to impose ozone treatment on a patient admitted for COVID with a critical situation , at the La Plana University Hospital, against the clinical judgment of the professionals who care for him. From the association in defense of public health they claim the following: - Their support to the Hospital colleagues in these difficult times, since they are "aware of both the effort and dedication in caring for patients , as well as their professional quality." - They also want to subscribe to all the statements of the scientific societies against this judicial decision (Society of Intensive Care Medicine, Society of Cardiology, Society of Internal Medicine of the CV, the Valencian Society of Pediatrics (SVP), Valencian Society of Primary Care AvalPap.
Association of Extra-hospital Pediatrics of Alicante (APEPA), Spanish Society of Extra-hospital Pediatrics and Primary Care (SEPEAP), and the corporations of the Official College of Physicians of Castelló and the Official College of Nursing, as well as the joint declaration of the public health institutions of the Province of Castelló. - They Australia Phone Number Vdenounce the new interference of the judiciary (on this occasion in public health), and denounce that "it represents a fatal precedent because it allows pseudoscience to enter public health institutions, where only actions guided by scientific evidence have a place . " . Scientific evidence indicates the lack of studies with results of this pseudotherapy and, therefore, no safety in treating the patient. - They demand a statement from the Minister of Health regarding this attack on public health institutions by the judiciary , because a "clear and forceful political.
Response would be necessary, since this decision puts the quality of care at risk, but above all the trust of citizens in the Public Health System and the professionals who work for health. - They demand that the Department of Universal Health and Public Health respond clearly and forcefully. - They believe that "the judicial sphere is not adequate to decide and force the use of a therapy that is not included in the portfolio of SNS Services and does not appear in the guides and protocols of action of scientific societies and health centers and does not comply "according to the AEMP, the criteria for compassionate treatments," they say from the association for the defense of public health.
Association of Extra-hospital Pediatrics of Alicante (APEPA), Spanish Society of Extra-hospital Pediatrics and Primary Care (SEPEAP), and the corporations of the Official College of Physicians of Castelló and the Official College of Nursing, as well as the joint declaration of the public health institutions of the Province of Castelló. - They Australia Phone Number Vdenounce the new interference of the judiciary (on this occasion in public health), and denounce that "it represents a fatal precedent because it allows pseudoscience to enter public health institutions, where only actions guided by scientific evidence have a place . " . Scientific evidence indicates the lack of studies with results of this pseudotherapy and, therefore, no safety in treating the patient. - They demand a statement from the Minister of Health regarding this attack on public health institutions by the judiciary , because a "clear and forceful political.
Response would be necessary, since this decision puts the quality of care at risk, but above all the trust of citizens in the Public Health System and the professionals who work for health. - They demand that the Department of Universal Health and Public Health respond clearly and forcefully. - They believe that "the judicial sphere is not adequate to decide and force the use of a therapy that is not included in the portfolio of SNS Services and does not appear in the guides and protocols of action of scientific societies and health centers and does not comply "according to the AEMP, the criteria for compassionate treatments," they say from the association for the defense of public health.