Federal Court in Brazil recognizes medical autonomy for Covid treatment

Judge José Henrique Crescendo, from the 22nd Federal Civil Court in São Paulo, rejected a lawsuit from the Union Public Defender’s Office (DPU) to suspend the validity of a 2020 opinion from the Federal Medical Council (CFM) that allows doctors to prescribe chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine in the treatment of Covid-19.

In the decision, the magistrate considered that the opinion neither recommends nor imposes the use of the drug but preserves doctors’ autonomy in treating their patients.

“The said Opinion No. 04/2020 has no normative force. It does not create any obligation or provide any punishment to doctors.”

“It aims only to preserve the autonomy of these professionals regarding the proper treatment of their patients, who should prescribe effective drugs available in the hospital and pharmaceutical network, keeping the patient always informed about the possible side effects of the treatment dispensed,” he wrote.

In the lawsuit, the DPU wanted the CFM to pay R$60 (US$11.5) million to the public authorities as compensation for collective damages, plus R$50,000 per family of a patient who died using chloroquine and R$10,000 for those who used and became sequelae of Covid.

All these claims were also rejected.

In the ruling, the judge recognized the CFM’s regulatory and supervisory power over doctors “to promote the good practice of medicine.”

On the other hand, he pointed out that in case of malpractice, imprudence, or omission, professionals can be held responsible for the revocation of registration in the courts, both civilly and criminally.

“Autonomy is fundamental so that the physician can be held responsible for any gross error he commits due to failure to follow the medical practice,” he wrote.

In the final part, he stated that it is not up to the Judiciary to determine that the CFM prohibits doctors from prescribing chloroquine.

“It would represent an undue interference in the technical organ of inspection of the medical class by a lay organ of the Judiciary.”

He then affirmed that almost three years after its edition, the opinion “has been ignored by the medical class, especially now that the great efficacy of mass vaccination in combating Covid-19 has become evident”.

This article was drafted with automated assistance and reviewed before publication. How we use AI · Report an error