Cité-de-la-Santé hospital in Laval Suspicious death in the operating room

Police investigating for murder

A “euthanasia”. This is how several upset members of staff described the death of an 84-year-old man in a divisive operating room at the Cité-de-la-Santé hospital in Laval in 2019. The shock was such that a manager of the establishment alerted the police, who have since been conducting a murder investigation, learned La Presse.

At the time, very little information had leaked out about this affair, which led to the resignation of an anesthesiologist. Two nurses who took part in the operation said they were devastated by it. You have to go back to October 31, 2019 to fully understand. That day, an octogenarian whose identity has not been revealed goes to the Cité-de-la-Santé hospital in Laval for stomach aches. A “bowel obstruction requiring surgery” was diagnosed.

A general surgeon and an anesthesiologist then meet with the patient to explain the risks associated with the operation. The man agrees to the level of care “Objective B: prolong life with limited care”, saying that he does not wish “there is cardiopulmonary resuscitation, nor emergency intubation”.

According to Superior Court documents seen by La Presse, the operation began around 2 a.m. on the night of November 1^st . The patient is sedated. During the operation, which lasts about two hours, the surgeon discovers “necrosis on large segments of his small intestine”. “Considering the extent of the surgical findings and the wishes expressed by the patient”, he then made the decision to join the patient’s family.

Over the phone, the doctor explains to the patient's niece – who was acting as an emergency contact – that “continuing the operation would require the patient to have a bag” and be hospitalized for an extended period. The two then decide to “conclude the operation and offer palliative treatment” to the patient.

Back in the operating room, the surgeon “closes the patient’s abdominal wall” and confirms to his anesthetist colleague “that the patient is not expected to survive”. It was then that a debate arose between the anesthetist and the nurses. The first questions "the usefulness of finding a room for the patient when he could be taken directly to the morgue", repeating that the man "has no one to accompany him" in palliative care. A nurse, however, retorts that the patient has a daughter, and that it is “wrong to pretend that he has no family”.

Despite everything, the anesthesiologist chose to give the patient an injection and to disconnect him from the ventilator around 4:45 a.m.

At the time of the injection, the nurse claims to have "said a few times that this is not the procedure to follow and that the patient must be returned to the floor to die there with dignity". Another nurse present “endorses” the words of her colleague.

The man's asystole, i.e. the cessation of his heartbeat, was finally confirmed around 5:04 a.m. The anesthetist left the room "without completing the death certificate", but informed the surgeon - who was left after the operation – from the time of death. A death certificate is then filled out, then the patient is transferred to the emergency room at 5:35 a.m., before a member of his family presents himself there a little after 7 a.m.

Consensus on “euthanasia”

The next day, the two nurses who participated in the operation informed the director of professional care at the hospital, Dr. Turcotte, that they were "turned upside down by the circumstances of the death" and experience "discomfort related to the actions" of the anesthesiologist.

Five days later, on November 6, 2019, Mr. Turcotte received a "written report from the nurses" and noted "what appears to him to be euthanasia".

D^r Turcotte then relayed the information to Dr^r Martin Chénier, president of the hospital's board of physicians, who also agreed "that it seems be about euthanasia”. This “is not part of a process of medical assistance in dying”, we also specify.

“Together, they go to the trustee of the College of Physicians and receive a notice that it appears to be euthanasia,” read the court documents. D^r Turcotte proceeds shortly after to the "emergency withdrawal" of the privileges of the anesthesiologist at the hospital. He then concludes that his actions “must be reported to the police”. An investigation is opened in the following days.

On November 11, the anesthesiologist offered through his lawyer to resign under "certain conditions", in particular to erase "all traces of this event" from his personal file. The suggestion is “rejected by D^r Turcotte”, but the anesthesiologist decides to resign anyway.

The legal context

Behind this case lies a veritable standoff that has arisen in recent months between the syndic of the College of Physicians and the Laval Police Department. The police wish to have access to the disciplinary investigation file and to evidence to carry out their investigation. It is stalling because of this legal battle, we can read in the documents made public on Thursday.

A privilege was claimed by the anesthesiologist and the syndic, so that the police could not consult the disciplinary file, even if they obtained a search warrant allowing them to seize it. It is that under the law, a professional has the obligation to collaborate in an investigation by his disciplinary committee, but obtaining a privilege nevertheless allows him to remain silent and not to meet the police. .

The police are currently trying to get their version of the facts by consulting the statement they provided to the trustee. So far, the police have interviewed most of the responders who were in the operating room on the night of November 1, 2019, except for this anesthesiologist.

The anesthesiologist tried unsuccessfully to obtain a publication ban on the facts of this case. A temporary 30-day publication ban was granted, however, to allow him to exercise his rights in the Supreme Court. But she then asked for a second delay, which was refused Thursday morning, which allows La Presse to distribute these documents without revealing the identity of the people involved.

The Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions filed a motion to have the question of privilege decided before the Superior Court. The debate on the claim of this privilege is scheduled for next fall.