We saw Dr Peñaló, as his colleagues call him, so is the schoolmate,
but it is Dr César Rivera who calls the people who check them.
One was given all the jurologist glaudio. And here we also have the lawyer,
the lawyer who talks about the castilla that I consume very often for the
stomach and said the effects. I stopped seeing traspati and now I' m
living water or AIDS, like he calls me to himself, because it can
be taken. And the doctor explained it, but not continuously. If there
are many pods and one provokes the fierce to see correct me to me told
me one person, a doctor told me a long time ago that the continuous
consumption of that medication, of that sheath also put a home me tutu of
the caco. With the passage of time you start to forget the thing and
the sheath and said that you have to take it, but under supervision and
strict medical prescription. Actually yes, there are some other days arts that every
doctor closes s good morning the doctor of the plane. There are some studies
that talk about how the prolonged use of these medications can cause some degree of
dementia cini senile, yes, well, just like other medicines, such as
the old carinics, are also. There are some studies that say that prolonged
and indiscriminate use of these medications can lead to dementia. I still run out
of water. Now to see if I' ll get rid of all those
really messed up drugs. Really the grandfather who' s going to be commenting
on diuresis. If diuresis increases, there will be a lower plasma concentration of
the medicine. I mean, God said send a lot of urine. High
term you all die I also have John Arthur with us here. The doctor
wanted to touch on the medical claims that have been made and made public and
that have had as sentences to hospitals and doctors, and wanted us to invite
Juan Arturo to also give a legal perspective to this issue that they had.
Today I saw in the newspaper list a note written by the president of a
foundation that the doctor' s name seeks his name so as not to stay
with him, that he had been a long time and it is true I
came to read in the two thousand fifteen that this kind of sentence would arrive
and that the doctors had to prepare for this which we are seeing now.
Well, I really do demand American From my point of view, I understand
it' s a right that the patient has. If we work from the
scientific method, the scientific method is supposed to allow anyone who undergoes a medical
treatment to actually verify their treatment, because we also know that not in all
individuals a treatment can work the same. And that' s why in some
countries then there are therapeutic protocols that if you follow those therapeutic protocols, then
the verification part. There is automatically nullified that happens in countries like Ours,
that therapeutic protocols are adjusted to the year two thousand a year, one thousand
ninety- six, and some of those of medical treatments and some of the
surgical treatments, which are even stipulated in our law, are subject to the
year two thousand, when the law was made forty- two one. And
if we look at any of these treatments today, in the 2, 000
twenty- four, none are standard for the treatment of many diseases, even
at the time of the patient, to seek medication coverage, procedure coverage,
treatment coverage. Many times they receive the refusal of the insurers, because what
is the standard today was not the standard in the year two thousand twenty,
In the year two thousand pardons And right now, many patients are demanding their
right to be verified and to be given a seclusion, either out of the
doctors, out of the technical, but a legal solution. What happens also
in our country that, unlike other parts of the world, we also do
not have a specialized stay for this type of problems, of these types of
legal problems, And much of what we ask as a specialist is that it
is removed as decriminalization, but it is good. Yes, sue me,
sue me in the civil court that you can, for example, have an
economic sanction or a sanction, let' s say so, a suspension of
the license, a suspension of the license, what' s going on in
other parts of the world. The criminal is what I was reading exactly that
and that' s what Ashley Cowboy, president of the Otor Cowboy Foundation,
was talking about, was the one who wrote and wrote about this in the
year two thousand fifteen backwards, warning that this could happen. So the criminal
issue is what you, as a doctor, understand should be what should be
really discussed. It is the most shameful thing for us to be treated in
a criminal way. We' re all going to be sued somewhere at some
point in our career, that for civilian, because it' s going to
be for abuse. I don' t expect it to be given to me,
but we' re all going to be subjected to some kind of research
at some stage of our career. I think we are all prepared and some,
for example, in private practice we have American protocols, we follow European
protocols to try to have our practice. Let' s say the most strictly
organized. The problem is that in a Dominican court the American protocol to me
is of no use to me. The European protocol to me is of no
use. I can have it as an example. But when they' re
going to judge me, they' re going to judge me by an obsolete
protocol. I' m not going to offer an obsolete treatment. In the
twenty- four thousand I' m going to try to offer a treatment.
For example, here we already have, thank God, Robot surgery. We
already see a group of doctors who are making the effort to prepare ourselves,
certify ourselves and have international certifications to use that device. But if we have
an inconvenience, the Dominican legislation may not contemplate that type of surgery and that
complicates everything, complicates everything and everything goes well. Maybe we don' t
have a problem. When something goes wrong, then maybe we have that weakness.
Although, for example, in eighty- ninety percent of international medical associations
already surgery with jrobot is accepted, for example, for the treatment of many
diseases. The medical school is right now, I think it' s developing
the best strategy by asking the state, asking the Supreme Court of Justice to
design a specialized court to deal with these cases, because it' s not
that we don' t want it to be dealt with, it' s
not that we don' t want to be sued, but rather that we
submit that lawsuit process within a group of people who understand what are the concepts
that will develop in each type of pathology and that it won' t be
understood that a complication or an unwanted result is a bad person, malpractice lawyer
looks at the main problem that doctors face today. When we go to both
the civil code and the penal code on these issues of liability, both civil
and criminal, it is the own wording that brings each of the codifications.
Or do not remember that both the civil code and the penal code that we
have in force in the Dominican Republic, regardless of all the laws that have
modified it over time. They are 19th- century codifications that came to Dominican
Republic from ninety- nine percent of what today medicine touches did not exist.
There wasn' t, I mean, all these specialties, the scientific advances,
not even the antibiotics yet I think they were discovered. This codifications arrive
in one thousand eight hundred twenty- two to the Dominican Republic with the Haitian
occupation and are then translated into Spanish, when, therefore, the country becomes
independent in one thousand eight hundred forty- four. When you then go to
the writing, you see that the writing is extremely closed in the case of
civil matter, it establishes that everyone who causes harm to another has to repair
it point. That is to say, basically that is the basis of civil
liability in the Dominican Republic, although later, since the code itself and the
laws that have emerged over time, are shaping a little bit this topic of
civil and criminal responsibility, which is what affects doctors in most cases, since
the crime that is being prosecuted is manslaughter in almost all of them that is
contemplated in the three hundred and nineteen and establishes to read it textually. Anyone
who, for recklessness, inadvertentness, negligence or inadmissibility of regulations, commits manslaughter
or is an involuntary cause of manslaughter shall be punished by a three- month
to two- year prison term and a fine. Obviously, there, within
that group also fall the errors in observance that is mentioned, but it could
be interpreted as the doctor very well points out that the use of protocols that
are outdated so are those approved by law, because they fall within the scope
of involuntary homicide, a little you are not using in principle the modern guidelines,
in force and accepted internationally in the field of medicine. So this complicates
a defense for the doctor, because, regardless of whether they can fully verify
that they followed the protocols that are standing and that not only followed those,
they followed those that are set out, for in Dominican legislations regulations at the
time when the argument comes out, but that is that those are regulations or
are guidelines of the year two thousand. The judge is in criminal proceedings bound
by his hands to rule only on the basis of the evidence submitted to him
and the law. There' s no room in that sense. The judge,
in order to maneuver, he' s gonna have to convict the doctor.
So, the doctor has followed the right protocol and the result, unfortunately,
that adverse result for the doctor now too and that is one of the
criticisms I think should be made and that is that at all times we have
to remember the mistakes. Neglect and fair observance are indicting or are the genesis
of liability, i e, regardless of whether you have followed the entire protocol.
Yeah, in that protocol. You make a mistake, you are responsible,
it is possible to be persecuted and the discussion has to be there.
I hear that, because the Dominican medical school and the doctor and you too
when we were talking out of the air, they support the creation of a
special jurisdiction to know, because of medical cases. I am not so sure
what kind of judges could make up that special jurisdiction, because special jurisdiction is
sometimes counterproductive. And I bring the example of the military courts that existed in
the Dominican Republic, where the military ended up judging military and, as I
forget, they say, between bombs or they don' t step on the
hose many times, because those soldiers did not fulfill the responsibilities that the law
determined those cases. Then I advocate more than the creation of a special jurisdiction
for the preparation of the justice agents, that there are agreements between the Dominican
medical school and the National School of the Judiciary to prepare better judges, that
there are agreements between the Dominican medical school and the School of the Public Ministry
to prepare also prosecutors, that they have knowledge of these aspects of medical responsibility
and thus start to create jurisprudence and start to have actors who know what they
are talking about. In addition, I believe that there needs to be a
major medical certification campaign so that they can be experts in court. The worst
mistake doctors can make is to get away from justice, get the experts out
there. Obviously, out of the doctors' solidarity, we' re not
going to help hide other doctors. That would be a mistake, because they
are losing the only voice they have in the judicial proceedings then and they could
prevent the judge from unfairly, for lack of understanding by the judge, reaching
a conclusion or a sentence that, in case it is, that the person
is not responsible, the judge ends up saying that I will not complirate goleto
pepapan were sometimes convicted even for lack of the judge not understanding it. It
' s just that sometimes the times are tied up with mach Yes, exactly,
but you know that Thursdays, just like everyone and all of us,
are clear human beings and can be possible to make a mistake. That'
s why when the code was approved to pre- empt the penalty that we
have in force, the judge' s intimate conviction was eliminated for exactly that.
That is not part of the process and the judge, as I said
earlier, is obliged to rule on the basis of evidence and is obliged to
pass judgement on the basis of the arguments that have been given to the Tribunal
and what the law establishes on what is being discussed. Dr César Rivera,
okay. Right now, what we have is, as you recommend us,
even set out to create that group of colleagues and colleagues who work in medical
expertise. I understand that the number of medical experts we have at the moment
very few certificates to also give an adequate response to many cases. Also right
now there is a great wave of doctors who have dedicated themselves to studying law
and I understand that the medical school should also gather those doctors almost as we
meet the jurislogists, the surgeons meet, the doctors meet lawyers and also help
design the strategy, not only to benefit the doctor, but also to protect
the patient, because really our raw material, our quarry, are the patients,
and we cannot create a barrier between patients and make us enemies of patients,
make us enemies of the lawyers, but see how we can these three
groups of human beings meet, speak the same language, establish review mechanisms,
because I do not want to do an irregular practice or do a practice that
is not subject to scrutiny. Of course, I also want it to be
understood that I can make a decision. Even now the patient is given more
participation in choosing certain treatments and starting from what the patient chooses, we,
as a doctor, then have to follow certain guidelines and explain to the patient
also each treatment that is chosen what its chances of success are, what its
chances of failure are. What to do if there is a failure? What
other alternatives we have, because also communication with the patient has been lost.
Many of us have lost communication with the patient, we have lost communication with
relatives and many times perhaps what triggers bad taste in the family, which then
ends in an act of demand, is that we do not have a fluid
and adequate communication. And the family then, based on what the lawyers explain
to him, it' s going to be that the lawyer founded or designed
a defense strategy for that family that was wronged and in many cases, maybe
we, as a doctor, do miss because we' re not human beings,
we' re going to be wrong. But I also understand that in
some of the cases, some of the comrades were unfairly judged with situations that
even literature, what happens is that they are not Dominican literatures, of course
they will not fail against him, but are situations that are favorable to him,
that he did what he had to do. I want to touch on
one aspect of what you mention author on that subject. Of the thing the
informed consents that basically because once already the patient, his family have been explained
all the possible consequences or benefits of following a medical treatment they to give their
adqhacence of ok We accept it, because they have to sign that informed consent
In the light of the courts. Only the fact of your signing the informed
consent is not going. Why. Because in the case of many professionals,
especially doctors, in the contractual relationship between the physician and the patient. There
are additional obligations that the physician, as the expert in the field and has
knowledge that the ordinary person will not have about medical aspects. Each element that
is part of a medical treatment should be not only correctly explained, but correctly
understood by the patient. That' s very important. It' s not
just you telling him look, you broke a bone, we' re gonna
stick a metal plate in you, we' re gonna move that arm,
a two- year treatment, we' re gonna follow you up or two
years we' re gonna get the plate out. It' s not just
that. And if the guy who puts his badge on it is raining it
and pulls lightning and kills it, the doctor is responsible no, because that
' s an unforeseen, it' s impossible, it' s a possible
crazy price that poque is going to die, he goes away illegitimate doctor,
that the family can say for that madman we fell. No. No,
no, already, that' s a house of force majeure, impossible,
exact camulas bastard, all bad, bad, understood there if I am if
not by the doctor in that case, because obviously that completely escapes control of
the responsibility of the doctors, although we have to see if the clinic in
a bad installation or a suitcase outside. No, but that' s already
a layer of doctors' control. But yes. It is important to tell
them who is listening to us and they are seeing us that in the medical
case, it is not only the fact of you explaining to the patient what
it is, the procedure, the treatment that is going to follow, but
to be absolutely sure that that patient understands what you are telling him. There
comes into play many issues such as the ability of a people to understand,
academic preparation, but unfortunately, that is the standard against which professionals face people
who do not practice that profession. The same obligation is required of lawyers in
many minimal details exact, not only applied, but you understand me what the
procedure is, and that is extremely important when it comes to creating a defense
when you go to court for this kind of patient cases. There' s
a question for me and it goes for both of us. I mean,
you got a case and you tell him and you' re as a lawyer,
you understand that this guy is responsible for what they' re accusing him
of and you tell him, look, they' re gonna convict you because
you' re responsible. So your job is to try to hurt him to
the least conviction possible, because they' re going to convict him. Then
you have a responsibility to tell him that Stop saying that if you report it,
he' s failing your right duty. The same happens when you receive
a patient and the patient you know that you have a disease that doesn'
t go out and there that you' re not alive or you' re
how you tell people to look, you' re going to die of that
cancer. My job is to alleviate the disease process, but you have a
disease that is no way. They have that really moral and ethical responsibility,
the doctor to inform you or you can sell you if you sell life expectancy
to that person, knowing that obviously, sometimes there are things that mysteriously work
and there are people who heal themselves, but there is that obligation the medium.
We are obliged in culture like our own, for example. Usually that
' s what we talk about with the family. The patient is not directly
told that it is a mistake for me. It' s a mistake because
it' s supposed to know what the real problem is with the patient.
But we often agree that the children tell us no. Please don' t
treat him before dad explains he doesn' t come to us. And if
there are patients who have to tell them they' re going to die,
the issue of death in the clinic is perhaps the most difficult issue for all
doctors, but there are some treatments that have high mortality. There' s
another treatment that has low mortality, but because of the fact that you have
low mortality, you don' t want to. He said that, for
example, in circumcision, three percent of what they submit to is going to
die, that this is something that is not yet misunderstood. I saw someone
is not happening person what they cut was the foreskin and that didn' t
die and I saw a doctor say it' s a mistake to talk about
that low risk says everything or has the human body at risk of death.
Well, there' s one bigger or smaller cup in another. That gives
an idea that you' re playing a lottery, but don' t sell
yourself the idea that I put a lot of this on the throne a simple
surgery and it came out. It came out like a white sheet up there.
No surgical act is simple. No surgical act is simple and I'
m going to repeat it three times. No surgical act is simple. There
are surgical acts, such as cardiovascular ones, which have a higher mortality rate.
There are surgical acts, for example, such as dermatological ones, which
have a lower mortality rate. Ti Len two copies, they don' t
have endoscopy have their mortality rate. I am not a gastroenterologist, but it
has its fatal index of perforations of the intestine, that is, there are
a number of complications until leading to the death of the patient than in the
scientific method. When that study was approved, they were identified. Over time,
we have been improving technology, We have applied other kinds of energies,
even to work within the body, to reduce risks and reduce mortality. But
every surgical act, every medical act, even because there are medications that have
side effects that we have determined and that can also cause death. We are
talking at the beginning of what was to be eaten for the stomach and which
is not recommended to be consumed intensively and not consumed outside medical supervision. And
there are people who get all that stuff out of that sidekick. For example,
about four or five years ago ranitydine, which was used more than homeprazo,
even in countries such as this one is totally discontinued by side effects.
There are no more, and perhaps countries like this still suit you because of
a cost issue to continue using the Ranity DI because if you start to see
the rate of complications for how much cost it could produce, perhaps in some
parts of the country you might not want to have a rank DE. But
the state made the decision to take them out radically, like other medicines,
because of the side effects. But it' s not that anything we'
re going to do in a patient is harmless. Everything can cause death.
How it is determined, for example, in a surgical case and to establish
legal responsibilities as it is being discussed, how it is determined then who had
the responsibility to make a claim when it is a case that is unique,
an anesthesis, there are several, there are several doctors involved in a problem
buy that chergic exactly then how that responsibility is taken when a patient wants to
sue a me stalantecist. It' s the one that cracks you, the
one that passes instruments, the nurse nurse who dries your sweat, and it
goes exactly to establish. That' s why you don' t see it
in the film fas bad and in a fatal case, for example, that
the patient dies. They always say mean negligence, medical negligence. Sometimes where
the exact net arose to cite a recent case of an eighteen- year-
old boy who went to take out some pieces to do an 18- and
19- year- old orthodox work and died of a heart attack from anesthesia.
So there' s a problem there, because the doctor who' s
supposed to do the surgery is one and the one who' s going to
nettify you is another. And in that particular case, there we speak of
dentistry Rome speaks in his case, a urologist has to operate a prosto,
for example, by ros, the primary physician is the one who bears the
full responsibility first. I, as a surgeon who brings a patient to the
O R, have all the responsibility for the passage. I' m supposed
to certify that the anesthesiologist there is certified, that my assistant is certified,
that the center where I' m going to operate also has all the certifications.
I, as a GP, am primarily responsible for what happens in that
act. So r they' re there in even reported. Residents are not
responsible. They' re coming like a waterfall. At the time of submission,
you were first, then the medical center and then you are going to
split up, when then here, in the first instance, the patient goes
there Nazif z does the first expertise, which is to do the autopsy.
After that then the medical record is sought, an optosia is also done to
the medical network Cold. That' s where the medical school experts come in,
and between the part that Linazif delivers and what the medical experts do.
Then responsibilities begin to be established in our country. Residents have no responsibility.
Residents are in training, they have to depend on me in every act that
a resident is. For example, I am a resident coordinator and no resident
of my residence operates alone or does anything. Only if he went crazy and
went out there and if any good supervision of my super already, he has
to something that excited right now. The graduate was very good, and we
have to get out of the head that that four gives us authority to do
everything. In nineteen hundred that four allowed me, as a doctor, to
give birth, perhaps me for my basic training. If there' s an
emergency, I can act on the lemeniza, but if it got to a
gynecologist, I have to let that gynecologist do his job. If you have
an emergency situation and I can diagnose an infant, because I know chest pain
or its duration, that state of agitation is the bras parrot removed. I
have to taste good for the arm hurts the left. I have to know
that his heart attack was already a nemotemia that was cute, where one had
also the monkey or one didn' t know what the treatment was, and
I can start it. Now having I' m going to go out there
I' m a durologist, cardiologist, gin costotra, pulmonologist and to do
everything I understand that I can do the table already we have to get that
out of our heads and finally, to see the legal part of the question
of tea, following what very well the doctor indicates once the processes have finished,
already of the autopsy and the expert that is carried out, to determine
exactly where the failure occurs, the negligence or that that simple person simply had
bad luck at that time. That' s where we lawyers come in and
determine who we' re going to sue, because many times in court what
you do is a discard. Suppose that in the process one cannot directly point
out any of the doctors or medical personnel who was involved in the surgical procedure.
So my irresponsibility as a lawyer is to sue everyone the devil I sue
the clinician or the hospital, you, I command the doctor of pru te,
I command the residents who were there under his supervision, I sue the
anesthesiologist of command to the nurse, I demand even the people who clean the
room, the one who brought him breakfast, Jedda, who could not have
breakfast, died with the do and I present then themselves. So, I
don' t know that this I present the facts and my evidence of what
happened. Why I point out that they are all jointly responsible. So they
are equally responsible and then they have the technical defense in the doctors' courts,
to end who is the possible responsibility or to defend that no one was
responsible in that case. So there the judges, which is the importance of
the experts, because they are the doggies that the judges will illustrate. What
' s the situation? The expert is going to take the judge, to
be inside that surgical room, where procedure is being done and he will explain,
step by step, what the procedure is and where the errors might have
been or if there was no error. That' s why I said right
now. It' s a mistake to pretend now that medical experts are taking
out of the media in solidarity with doctors because they share that view, because
you' re getting your voice out of the judicial process and you' re
letting it be the judge, who' s not an expert in medicine,
who makes the decision based on what' s being presented to him alone and
essentially using the law and applying it exactly as it is written. Then.
That' s why the lawyer' s role has to be there in that
case. If I' m representing the plaintiff, I' m going to
hold everyone responsible so that it' s the judge who, through his decision,
says look. The doctor Cabecera was not responsible because he followed the protocols
of the place. The residents were not responsible because I never laid hands on
the patient. The anesthesiologist was responsible because he passed to the extent of the
anesthesia he had, since he had to inject it. Then download everyone and
the anesthesiologist is held responsible and is the possible convicted in that case. Or
it could be that the doctor who is operating makes a deeper cut than was
initially thought a mistake. Or whatever the carota is and where the croons are
The neck happens, that is, mistakes happen, unfortunately, and the judge
understands that none of us are responsible. It is responsible for the doctor who
was, therefore, caring for that person who we are operating on the residents
quickly, as you describe it, between the residents and the doctor who is
in charge of them there is a preposed committeeing relationship We have talked here that
this is a relationship that is similar to that of the artisans with their apprentices.
He' s going to be responsible for what residents do based on his
instructions. If that resident goes out operating people out there and the doctor doesn
' t know it until a mess explodes, he can' t be responsible
for that ever or ever, but what happens in that hospital, in that
clinic, under the supervision of the crag, the head of the residents,
who heads them, who determines what their duties are going to be over the
course of a day the mistakes they make. He' s going to answer
that that' s what breaks the criterion that you' re going to pay
for the responsibility for what you do. That' s one of the exceptions
we' ve talked about here some juantos, parents with minor designs, animal
owners know animals, they hurt other people. In the case of parkers who
are employees of restaurants or super treated companies to provide that service, we have
mentioned it here on several occasions. Then that relationship with the chief doctors and
their residents, because it also falls, falls within those exceptions. There'
s a date, there' s a little thing and it' s a
lot. This and it is our daily bread. For example, where would
the medical diligence enter this question of demand, which is why there are people
who take a sick patient to an emergency, but then they find the picture
that always presents the nurse drinking coffee over there the guy the doctor, when
it appears that you have to make a deposit and if you don' t
get it exactly happens the patient dies. In what is presented the case that
the guy grabs and deposits the money that has to be deposited in the box
to be cared for that the nurse finishes seeing that his coffee, that the
resident doctor pairs that it is that I that thing that you have to bring
him a receipt certifying that you deposited that money, the patient dies waiting for
attention. Attention then how to proceed. There' s medical negligence. That
' s where the entire clinic is demanded with the entire doctor up to the
trucker. As the good law says in that case, for example, there
is already non- observance. That is negligence and if that usually happens the
times that has happened, the center is always sued with all the actors.
It' s a practice that I understand has declined a lot in the Dominican
Republic. Here too, we have to understand that bureaucratic procedures also often complicate
emergency care, because we have sometimes oversaturated emergencies with patients who do not want
to go to the clinic, and that oversaturation makes it many times when a
real emergency arrives. If I am already taking care of you and I see
that there is very missing, you are not going to want me to go
well, because you understand that your problem is more serious than King two.
And that' s what happens in eighty or ninety percent of the misunderstandings you
see in those situations. Many times immenence has an internist, they have a
pediatrician and a general practitioner. The piatrata with children, the internetta with adults
or the emergenciologist. Thank God, we already have the medicologist in our country
and we often waste more time on the emergency with situations that are not emergency,
for example Mitaliti. Mentrual pains are fading. That' s what'
s in the emergency. It' s here right now and really when a
real emergency patient arrives, we have to divert all the time. Sometimes in
an ambitalid and you will understand proximism you have ambita Liti and I will help
you of the night I attend. I have insurance first. I got here
first. But we have to start making proper use of the emergency. For
example, in another part of the world, the use of the emergency is
paid by the patient. Here, unfortunately, the use of emelence is paid
for by insurance and all the emergency so full the scoundrel already finally with you
exactly. It will seem that if bureaucratic processes are so unreasonable with regard to
other hospitals or other clinics in the same situation. That, then, creates
responsibility for the medical center. I mean, that' s the first thing
you see if all the bureaucratic processes you have are exactly the same as those
of MEDIA or if they' re more complicated, longer and more tedious,
because that could create responsibility for the clinic of the medical center in general.
And so, as the doctor put it right, the case of non-
observance of the doctors of the sick woman said check it out. Now,
since I' m seeing a coffee or whatever time of Almo lady almo,
it' s done, give me a second, I' m going and
you twisted a whole pain there' s until you die, because then that
too could generate responsibility for everyone who' s that amargent. I went in
exchange for a jeck and the one who got it to me went to comay.
He didn' t tell me anything and the check in another box and
an hour I' m waiting for my check to be changed had confirmed it.
Thank you, Dr César Rivera, thanks to Von Arturo, he'
s going to apologize to Dr Fo who asked you to come, but you
have to come tomorrow. We need to talk about NBA. All right,
we need to talk about never- ending problems, but we always thank you
for the availability. I think the audience is pretty clear about what' s
going on. I myself was in error in many concepts. I' m
not a doctor, I' m not a lawyer. I now have a
clearer idea of this issue. That' s why I haven' t talked
about him much, because I didn' t. I think that the criteria
are enough to give me a clear view of what is going on. And
I do agree with what the doctor is proposing and I fully support that here
we have to review from the protocols to how these kinds of actions are being
pursued and punished, which I think are excessive and should only be admissible in
exceptions, exceptions where the intention I know exactly is to harm, because no
doctor. I have a lot of medical friends and we see ros with it
and I share and know that they are all good people. No doctor studies
this career with the intention of taking life, but of giving it and helping
to improve it. Then it' ll be the doctor' s feeling.
And for any nonsense and you' re going pana hayo I imagine it'
s a face on your back as professionals as well and in your conscience you
pussy. But it' s just that I feel like I' m stealing,
that I feel like a pussy, and that I was a potential criminal.
And it' s not like that. It' s not like that.
So, doctor, thank you, Juan Arturo, thank you. We
' re gonna put this on YouTube. We were discussing the issue of medical
demands here at the rhythm of the morning, with Dr César Rivera, urologist
and Juan Alturo, his lawyer, who is the doctor. The doctor'
s going on a trip again, but you' re going to a doctor.
We' re going to San Antonio, Texas. Look at me,
but for God' s sake, my God, this year he' s
traveled you more than I have. I haven' t gone out twice We
' re already here.