Background:
The Client is a 59-year-old teacher from Guatemala. She has worked her whole life and contributed financially to the mandatory fees of the social security system in the country.
She was diagnosed with cancer, specifically with "diffuse high-grade diffuse B-cell non-Hodgkin's lymphoma." This inflammatory, complex, and aggressive disease causes severe physical incapacity and high psychological fatigue.
Since she was diagnosed, she has been through several treatments, including chemotherapy. She obtained these first medications through charitable foundations and Guatemala's social security health system. Unfortunately, all the treatments were unsuccessful.
The doctors noticed that she suffered a relapse from cancer. Consequently, based on studies from agencies in the United States and Europe, her doctors prescribed a treatment that included the following medicines: Bendamustine, Rituximab, and Polatuzumab Vedotin. These medicines are essential for patients with their condition.
Based on medical recommendations, she had to start the treatment as soon as possible to preserve her life. So, the medicine was urgent to be able to complete her treatment. However, the social security institutions in Guatemala did not supply her with the prescribed medication.
During her multiple appointments at the Institution, she consistently requested her medication, expressing her concerns verbally. Unfortunately, the authorities ignored her situation and requests. She filed a letter asking for her medication to address her medical needs, but the treatment she needed was not administered.
The Client needed to take legal action to try and fight cancer.
The Role of GtD Impact Foundation:
The Client contacted the Foundation via close contact.
The GtD Impact Foundation prepared and filed an "Amparo," a constitutional action, before the Constitutional Court of Guatemala on behalf of the Client.
In this action, the Foundation claimed that the Institution risked the Client's integrity, health condition, and life by not supplying her with cancer treatment. In addition, we alleged that the Institution violated its constitutional obligation to ensure welfare, social security, and access to health care.
The specific arguments highlighted by the Foundation were the following:
With the negative from the Institution to provide her with her medication, the Institution was violating the Client's constitutional right to life.
With the negative from the Institution to provide the Client with her medication, the Institution was violating local and international regulations that protect the constitutional human right to health.
With the negative from the Institution to provide her with her medication, the Institution violated its constitutional obligation to provide medicines in the welfare system prescribed in the Constitution and to do it assertively.
With the negative from the Institution to provide her with her medication, the Institution violated its obligation to provide social security, a regime established in the Constitution.
With the negative from the Institution to provide her with her medication, the Institution was violating all the human rights international treaties ratified by Guatemala that guarantee life and health.
Outcome and status:
The constitutional action demanded the Court to order the Institution to provide the Client with her medication.
The Client received positive outcomes through the Foundation. We managed to secure all the supply of the necessary medication for her treatment.
Public institutions should meet their responsibilities without legal intervention. Still, we are glad to announce that, thanks to our work, the Client has received three doses of treatment and is now CANCER-FREE! We wish her a healthy recovery and always have her in our team’s heart.
Check out this part of the Constitutional Court's judgment:
Comments