Medico-legal aspect of Andrea Massa case

As a relative of Andrea Massa, the seven-year-old boy from Naxxar who died at St Luke's Hospital on February 28, 2001 after an appendicitis operation, I wish to appeal to readers to show solidarity with the child's parents, who after three years are still suffering the repercussions of this tragedy.

In fact, today everybody still asks how it could be possible for a child, described by the court experts as "previously healthy" and "a well-built and well-nourished child", to die merely a week after having been admitted to hospital.

Although it appears that the facts have now begun to emerge, surely the description given on oath in court by one of the surgeons who operated on the child, is an indication of the appalling state in which the boy found himself immediately following the second operation performed in an attempt to save his life: "The boy looked sick, he avoided movements and looked slightly dehydrated. There were no bowel sounds. All these were signs of peritonitis. These are the classical symptoms of peritonitis. The post-operative wound was infected and leaking pus. The supra-pubic area and the scrotum were swollen. My diagnosis was one of peritonitis with beginning septic shock and organ failure."

I am convinced that this diagnosis would not surprise anyone, especially since on February 26, 2001, the day before the second operation, there was no consultant on duty in the Paediatric Ward for the entire day. In fact, from the evidence produced in the case, it results that the consultant who was meant to have taken over from the on-duty consultant that day, was only informed of his duties at a quarter to midnight on February 26, that is, practically a day after the on-duty consultant was supposed to have taken sick leave. Consequently, the child was left for an entire day without the necessary medical attention his particular condition required.

As everyone is already aware, an unexpected turn of events shook Andrea's case even further last year, when suddenly, without warning, the Attorney General presented a declaration in the Criminal Court dated February 12, 2003, whereby he classified the case as nolle prosequi: "billi jidhirlu li ma hemmx ragunijiet bizzejjed il-ghaliex l-istess konsulent pedjatriku jitqieghed taht att ta' akkuza, huwa mhux bi hsiebu jgib il-quddiem dan il-Att" (Once he deems there are insufficient reasons for an indictment to be issued against the paediatric consultant, the Attorney General does not intend this Bill of Indictment to be issued against him.")

However, the explanation given by the Minister of Justice and the Interior in the context of PQ No. 1,446, indicated that the decision to issue a nolle prosequi was taken in view of the fact that the prosecution as well as the parte civile had no further evidence to produce in connection with the case.

In fact, the minister claimed, in the same PQ that: "If they had any further evidence to produce, they should have produced this before the magistrate compiling the evidence in the case, or at least, they should have given an indication that there was in fact further evidence to be brought."

The minister also declared that the records of the case were not returned for the continuation of the production of evidence, since there was no indication that there was indeed further evidence to be brought. These declarations are certainly unacceptable, especially since the child's parents were anxiously awaiting justice to be dispensed in this case and, those who were directly or indirectly responsible for the death of their son would be made to answer for their shortcomings in this respect.

I would also like to refer to the latest PQ 3,849, and would comment that the Attorney General no longer needs to protect the confidentiality or identity of the child, since it is common knowledge that the child's name was Andrea Massa. Such protection was needed in February 2001 when the boy was being treated in hospital, and not now. The public would now like to be duly informed of the circumstances and details that caused the death of this child; these details are soon to be made public.

It is now up to the public to judge whether the parents are justified to request that those responsible, directly or indirectly, for the death of their son, answer for their wrongdoings and whether, despite the passage of time, they should continue to insist that the entire truth regarding this case is revealed and that due justice is served.