No. 07-00-273/2022-02 date: 26. 9. 2022.

OPINION

The opinion was issued regarding the complaint of A. A. from Belgrade against Dr. B. B, a specialist in otorhinolaryngology, due to discrimination based on health status. The complaint stated that A. A. submitted a complaint against Dr. B. B to the protector of patients’ rights. It was further specified that in the statement the doctor gave to the protector of patients’ rights, among other things, she stated: “By inspecting the electronic record, it can be seen that the patient has other chronic diseases, Dg F # (complainant blacked out the diagnosis label) and Dg F # (complainant blacked out the diagnosis label), which can influence the general dissatisfaction of patients. From the documentation, it can be seen that the patient harasses the doctors with threatening e-mails /copies attached/.” In the statement of Dr. B. B. it was specified that following the request of the protector of patients’ rights, and according to the complaint submitted by patient A. A, she presented a statement in which she provided information on other diagnoses as well, in order to offer a comprehensive overview of the patient’s health condition. During the proceedings, it was established that in the statement handed to the protector of patients’ rights, Dr. B. B. explained her decisions regarding diagnosis and prescribing therapy in the field of otorhinolaryngology and, in addition, stated: “By inspecting the electronic record, it can be seen that the patient has other chronic diseases, Dg F # (complainant blacked out the diagnosis label) and Dg F # (complainant blacked out the diagnosis label), which can influence the general dissatisfaction of patients. From the documentation, it can be seen that the patient harasses the doctors with threatening e-mails /copies attached/.” It was established that in her statement regarding the patient’s objection to the otorhinolaryngologist health check, the doctor unnecessarily indicated that the patient also has chronic diseases from the list of mental disorders and behavioral disorders. It was further established that the complainant was stigmatized in this way, with the intention of reducing the strength of his arguments in the complaint procedure, equating his health condition with the impression of his argument, as well as presenting the complainant as a person who behaves under the influence of the diagnosis that was assigned to him in the domain of mental health, which “hinders and endangers both social interaction and the actors of social interaction”. Therefore, the Commissioner issued the opinion that Dr. B. B, by unnecessarily pointing out chronic diseases of patient A. A from the list of mental disorders and behavioral disorders in the proceedings before the protector of patients’ rights regarding his complaint, violated the dignity of A. A, that is, the provisions of Article 12 of the Law on Prohibition of Discrimination. The Commissioner recommended Dr. B. B. to send a written apology to A. A. due to the violation of his dignity based on his health condition, as well as that, when performing tasks from her profession in the future, she does not violate the provisions of anti-discrimination regulations.

COMMISSIONER FOR THE PROTECTION OF EQUALITY
Brankica Janković