Serious Crimes Case (Be’er Sheva) 63400-04-21 State of Israel v. Maor Meir Dadon - part 32

In his cross-examination, the witness confirmed that MDA does not insert a troker, in the case of an air chest, but rather a needle to drain the chest, even though the goal is the same - to improve the respiratory system (p.  851).  According to him, when performing the operation, it is not necessary to hear air coming out, especially when you are traveling in a noisy ambulance, and even in other traumatic situations.  To the general question of whether if a person suffers from chest drainage on the left side, and a chest drainage is performed on the right side, his condition worsens, the witness replied in the affirmative.  As for the present case, the witness confirmed that at first an air chest was made on the left side, and later on, a need developed, as a result of the penetrating injuries to the upper body, and an air chest was also made on the right side.  The witness further explains that in our case "there was respiratory suppression, the patient did not breathe spontaneously in a stable manner.  There was also a reduction in air intake when listening to the lungs, and in addition he had congestion in the cervical vein" (pp.  854, 25-26), and confirmed that he did not do so, and that he did not see anyone else doing massages.  With regard to the existence of a pulse, he replied that during the ride in the ambulance the patient was checked with a monitor and medical equipment, and that he had a pulse.  It is possible that after he entered the emergency room, or the trauma room, the situation changed and deteriorated (pp.  856-857).  When asked whether it was possible that the operations performed on the right chest were not successful enough, or effective - taking into account the pathologist's opinion, which did not find evidence of treatment in the left breast, but only in the right breast - and therefore did not improve the patient's condition, the witness replied, "What happens inside is no longer under our control.  We only perform actions according to what we see outside, and by the medical tests that can be done.  But we don't have a chest, we can't do a chest X-ray, we don't have an ultrasound, and we can't see what's happening inside the body now, as if under the patient's skin.  So according to the indications that the patient himself has, and his indicators, we work according to a protocol, which is based on medical studies, and we do it accordingly.  That's what we did during the treatment" (p.  865 s.  29 - p.  866 s.  3).  When the defense attorney presented him with a thesis according to which puncture of the chest on the right side, when the need was on the left side, not only did not help the patient, but also worsened his condition, the witness replied that there was reduced air intake on both sides, and that the decision of the team leader was to puncture the chest on the right side, in addition to the left side (pp.  870, 20-22).  In response to the defense attorney's question, the witness who saw bloody foam on the wounds on the right side denied (p.  873, para.  13).