Spanish doctor convicted for ignoring dying man nearby

Jury finds doctor guilty for staying in bed while patient died

A 65-year-old man convulsed on the floor of his home on Juan Llorens Street in València, Spain, while one of his sons crossed the street to seek help from the Primary Care Health Centre (Punto de Asistencia Sanitaria) directly opposite. The distance was just 50 meters. His other son called emergency services (112). The on-call doctor at the centre was asleep. A nurse proge her and explained that someone at the door was alerting them that their relative was dying. The medical professional asked only one question: Had they called 112? Yes. And she went back to bed.

The patient, Emilio Núñez, had entered cardiac arrest and subsequently died. The case was tried with a popular jury in October 2023; the jury declared her guilty, and the Public Prosecutor's Office is seeking a year and a half of disqualification from practice and a €4,500 fine for the crime of omission of the duty to render aid. The prosecution does not argue that she could have saved his life. It argues something more uncomfortable: that she could have assisted and accompanied him in his final minutes, and did not.

The facts: 50 meters, a cardiac arrest, and a silent TETRA radio

The accused, aged 36, was on duty for external assistance. Her defence relies precisely on this: she could not leave her post and simply trinc the rules. "I stayed waiting to be notified via the TETRA radio if I were required," she repeated in court. She admits she made no further efforts to check the patient's condition or whether emergency services were en route. According to her version, she received no other alerts during that early morning shift.

And under questioning by the prosecutor, she confessed she would act the same way again. Her reasoning has a harsh logic: "Why would I treat a patient who is 50 meters away but not one who is 500?" The deceased had undergone heart surgery ten days prior.

What the Prosecution seeks and what the Defence argues

In addition to the penalty, the Public Prosecutor's Office demands compensation of €90,000 for the widow and three children of the deceased. The doctor's defence maintains that her professional record is impeccable and that she was always positively evaluated by colleagues and patients. In its brief, it details the operation of the Emergency Information and Coordination Centre (CICU) and attributes any potential deficient care to the administration itself.

Does protocol require staying inside the health centre?

Much of the public reaction accepted the argument without nuance: if the protocol states the doctor does not leave the premises, leaving is not an option, and doing so may incur liability for abandonment of the workplace. The slippery slope is raised aloud. Is 50 meters yes and 500 no? What about 100? What about a kilometer? And if another emergency arises at the centre while she is outside, and the doctor who should be there is not?

The other side does not dispute the distance; it disputes the duty. Crossing a street is within anyone's reach, and the alleged crime does not require saving anyone, only not turning a blind eye. The stance is summarized without frills: it wasn't necessary to be a hero, it was necessary to get up.

Why call 112 instead of the local doctor?

The most repeated technical thesis holds that a primary care physician, without equipment or an ambulance, has little margin in the face of cardiac arrest. First aid courses explain it bluntly: in cardiac arrest, the patient is clinically dead; all that can be done is keep the heart beating through massage until the mobile ICU arrives, which carries the defibrillator and trained personnel. Under this prism, the correct resource was 112, and the call was made.

But that same logic opens a second front. If the resource was 112, why didn't the emergency service urgently mobilize everything it had available? Some argue that the call was answered by someone who failed to grasp the severity of the situation and that the failure begins and ends neither in the on-call bed nor solely with the doctor.

The case as a screen: origin, gender, and brain drain

As happens with events that touch a nerve, the case was used for other battles. Part of the reactions drifted toward the doctor's origin, as if her nationality explained the decision. Another block took it into the realm of gender, presenting a supposed lack of empathy as a trait of the group. Neither thing has backing in the facts: what exists is an internal instruction, an on-call shift, and a personal decision at three in the morning.

The third diversion was different: the incorporation of doctors trained abroad, the exodus of recent graduates to the UK, Germany, the Netherlands, or France, and the bottleneck in the public system. All fits into the same complaint, although the specific case proves only one thing: that at those hours, 50 meters from a health facility, a man died waiting.

The popular jury declared her guilty, and now the court decides. The requested sentence—year and a half of disqualification and €4,500—fits within the monthly salary of many workers. Meanwhile, she stated in court that she would do the same again.