Facts
Parties: Appellants (A.A. and B.A.) against respondents (Dr. C.) and the Public Prosecutor's Office of the Canton of Aargau.
Facts: On May 21, 2015, D.A. (mother of the appellants) consulted Dr. C. and received the medication Cefuroxim. She later died of anaphylactic shock caused by the medication. The appellants alleged that Dr. C. had acted negligently by prescribing the medication, despite knowing that D.A. could have an allergic reaction.
Lower Court: The District Court of Kulm acquitted Dr. C. of the charge of negligent homicide. The Higher Court of the Canton of Aargau confirmed this acquittal.
Appeal: The appellants filed an appeal in criminal matters and requested the annulment of the Higher Court's judgment as well as the conviction of Dr. C. for negligent homicide.
Considerations
The appellants alleged a violation of Art. 117 in conjunction with Art. 12 para. 3 and Art. 11 SCC. They argued that Dr. C., as the new family doctor, was obligated to obtain the medical records to recognize D.A.'s hypersensitivity to penicillin and Cefuroxim and thus prevent her death.
The lower court found that Dr. C. had conducted an initial anamnesis and clarified the question of an allergy to antibiotics. It emphasized that the doctor had no indications of an increased risk regarding the medication Cefuroxim and thus no breach of duty of care was present. The lower court also denied the doctor's obligation to actively obtain the patient's medical records, as these were not submitted despite repeated requests.
According to Art. 117 SCC, negligent homicide is punishable if the perpetrator does not…