4.30pm
Sunday 11 December 2022
Alexandria – Masrawy:
Today, Sunday, the Criminal Court of Alexandria decided to ban the publication of the case known to the media as “My Alexandrian children, Iman and Sajida”. Today, Sunday, the court postponed the trial of a pharmacist and a worker on charges of causing the death of two children by mistaken injection to tomorrow, Monday, to complete the applications and briefs .
The Public Prosecutor had ordered the referral to the Criminal Court of a pharmacist and a worker. For accusing them of deliberately injuring the two children, Iman and Sajda, with an injection, which caused their death, after the Public Prosecutor’s Office verified the testimony of 9 witnesses against them, and what was proved by the expert reports of the Legal Medicine Authority, and what was found during the inspection of the pharmacy by the Public Prosecutor’s Office at the scene of the accident and by observing the control machines inside, and what was admitted in the investigations by the two defendants.
The investigations concluded that the defendant working in the pharmacy had injected cefotaxime to the two female victims without testing its sensitivity, and is not authorized to practice as a human doctor, as injecting patients is an act affecting the human body, and it is forbidden to do so without having obtained authorization to practice medicine. The hypersensitivity of the two girls to this substance led to complications which ended with a drop in their blood circulation and an insufficiency of their respiratory functions, which led to their deaths, according to the anatomical report of their bodies released by the Medical Examiner Authority.
The investigations confirmed that the defendant pharmacist participated with the other in the crime through instigation and assistance, as she incited her to inject the two girls while she was not qualified to practice medicine, and helped her by placing her in able to use the tools, materials and drugs necessary for the injections in the pharmacy, therefore the crime was committed on the basis of this instigation and that assistance.
Among the evidence invoked by the prosecutor against the two defendants was the testimony of the parents of the two victims, who confirmed that the pharmacy worker was the one who injected the drug into their daughters without testing their sensitivity. of the two victims was a result of hypersensitivity to the drug they were injected with, which caused complications in their bodies that ended in their death, and that the direct cause of death was their injection without conducting a sensitivity test.
During the inspection of the pharmacy, the Public Prosecutor’s Office found residues of syringes which, according to the chemical laboratory report, contained the same active ingredient of the drug with which the two girls had been injected, and the defendant working in the pharmacy confirmed that these residues they were the ones he used in the accident.
The Public Prosecutor’s Office also relied on the statements of the two defendants in the investigations, which led the defendant pharmacist to give the other the task of injecting the two girls with the aforementioned drug without testing its sensitivity. she injected them and signs and symptoms of allergy subsequently appeared, and the two defendants confronted the recordings and acknowledged their authenticity.
The prosecution had asked three female pharmacists inspectors of the Egyptian Medicines Authority, members of the committee formed by the prosecution, to inspect and inventory the contents of the pharmacy at the scene of the accident, and who confirmed with their testimony in the investigation that pharmacists are not allowed to inject patients, considering that this work is genuine work of doctors only, and also it is not allowed. For those who do not have a certificate to practice as a pharmacist to be present in pharmacies in the first place , and they also confirmed through their inspection of the pharmacy that there are several violations in it.
The Public Prosecutor challenged the defendant working in a pharmacy for exercising the profession of human doctor without being registered in the medical register, in contrast with the provisions of the law, as well as for exercising the profession of pharmacist without a license. photocopy copies of the cards to be allocated for the rest of the facts that emerged during the investigation; act independently.
