Removal of boy’s kidneys ‘drastic’ move

CHR: Although consent not needed in emergency cases, doctors should have talked to family about implications

The decision to remove the kidneys of 13-year-old Aldrinne Pineda was a “drastic measure” that would require a “very good explanation” from his doctors, according to the medico-legal officer of the Commission on Human Rights (CHR).

“It’s drastic because we all need at least one kidney in order to live,” Joseph Jimenez told the Inquirer in an interview on Tuesday.

Jimenez conducted a second autopsy of the body of Pineda before the boy—who was shot in the stomach by PO2 Omar Malinao at the Vitas Slaughterhouse in Tondo, Manila, on March 2—was buried.

Part of ongoing CHR probe

The procedure was part of the CHR’s ongoing investigation of the case based on a complaint filed by the boy’s family.

It was only during the reautopsy that Jimenez found out that both kidneys were gone.

“I was surprised so I asked the grandmother where the kidneys were and if the family knew that the organs had been removed. The grandmother said that the organs were in a jar at their house,” he said.

During the operation to remove the bullet in her son’s stomach, a surgeon at Tondo Medical Center (TMC), Dr. Saadi Sacar, also took out his kidneys without the family’s consent, according to Pineda’s mother, Michelle.

Her son visibly weakened af- ter the operation, she said. He cried continuously but could not talk because he was hooked up to tubes.

Organs returned after death

The boy’s kidneys, along with a portion of his liver, were eventually returned to the family a few days after his death.

Contrary to what the hospital told the victim’s family, the boy’s kidneys were not struck by the bullet, according to Jimenez.

Instead, it penetrated his lungs, abdomen and diaphragm, he added.

Both kidneys, however, were damaged: one was contused while the other was ruptured.

Indirect causes or forces might have damaged Pineda’s kidneys such as shock waves, Jimenez said.

“We don’t want to impugn the surgeons. I believe they will do what they think is necessary for the situation. That’s their prerogative. But I believe they need a very, very good explanation as to why they removed both kidneys,” he added.

The Inquirer has repeatedly tried to get the side of TMC but was told that all interviews must be approved first by the hospital director.

Explanation needed

While Jimenez thinks that “consent was not necessary in emergency operations” such as Pineda’s case, he said the doctors should have explained the implications of their action.

“Because as I have said, you cannot survive without a kidney. You will die,” he said.