Doctor claims Maradona should have been hospitalized instead of sent home

In Argentina, during a trial that commenced on March 11, 2023, Mario Alejandro Schiter, a doctor who treated Diego Maradona, testified that the soccer legend should have been admitted to a rehabilitation facility instead of being discharged to home hospitalization following surgery in 2020. Maradona, who achieved fame as the captain of Argentina's national team that won the World Cup in 1986, died on November 25, 2020, at the age of 60. His death was attributed to a lack of adequate care during home hospitalization. Schiter's testimony highlighted that Maradona was not easy to manage and required specialized care following major surgery. Seven medical professionals, who constituted Maradona's care team, are facing charges of culpable homicide related to his death. The alleged negligence on their part raises serious concerns about the quality of care provided to Maradona during a critical period of his recovery. According to the prosecution, the performance of these professionals fell below acceptable standards, potentially leading to the tragic outcome. Schiter, who had closely monitored Maradona, noted that he would not have recommended home hospitalization due to the star's complex medical history and previous struggles with drug addiction. Witness statements during the trial also underscored the inadequacies of the home environment where Maradona was cared for, indicating that it lacked necessary medical equipment. Schiter recounted that the directors at the clinic opted for home care despite his reservations, indicating a possible breakdown in communication regarding Maradona's health needs. As the trial unfolds, more than 100 witnesses are anticipated to take the stand, with expectations that their testimonies will reveal further insights into the circumstances surrounding Maradona's passing. The case sheds light not only on the responsibilities of medical professionals but also on the broader healthcare practices concerning high-profile patients. As public interest in the case remains high, many are looking to the court’s decisions to determine accountability and potentially reform negligence standards in medical care. The implications of this case could drive discussions around the ethics of medical decisions and the right of patients to receive the appropriate level of care throughout their recovery process.