The Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw, in a judgment dated October 23, 2024, fully supported the position of the Patient Ombudsman, confirming that laboratory testing of ticks does not comply with the requirements of current medical knowledge and cannot be considered diagnostic in the context of Lyme disease.
The court confirms the position of the Patient Ombudsman: Tick lab tests are not the basis for Lyme disease diagnosis
Published Oct. 29, 2024 07:13
Fot. Thinkstock/Getty Images
On October 23, 2024, the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw reviewed a complaint by a medical entity against a decision by the Patient Ombudsman, which found that offering laboratory testing of ticks violated patients' collective rights. In justifying its decision, the Ombudsman pointed out that testing ticks for the presence of pathogens of transmissible diseases, including Lyme disease, is not a diagnostic test, and the result of such a test does not constitute a basis for diagnosing the disease or implementing treatment. The court fully supported this position, stating that offering such tests in medical laboratories violates patients' right to reliable health care in accordance with current medical knowledge.
The Patient Ombudsman also reminded the public that Lyme disease diagnosis is based on the analysis of clinical symptoms and the results of serological tests from the patient's blood, not on the examination of animal material. The results of such tests do not confirm infection in humans, and therefore should not influence therapeutic decisions.
The Ombudsman's position was supported by the Ministry of Health and the provincial consultants for infectious diseases from Wielkopolska and Mazovia. The National Chamber of Laboratory Diagnosticians also supported the position, stressing that tick testing in diagnostic laboratories can mislead patients.
At the same time, the administrative court reviewed another complaint by a medical entity related to the ILADS method, used to treat Lyme disease through months of antibiotic therapy, often using more than one antibiotic. The method, although it has gained popularity, was found by the court to be incompatible with current guidelines and dangerous to patients' health. The Patient Ombudsman, citing expert opinions, pointed out that prolonged antibiotic therapy can lead to serious health consequences, such as permanent damage to the liver, kidneys or nervous system.
It is worth noting that in recent months, administrative courts have confirmed the legitimacy of the Patient Ombudsman's decisions on three occasions, rejecting complaints from medical entities and declaring long-term antibiotic treatments for Lyme disease dangerous. These decisions are important in ensuring that patients are protected from potentially harmful medical practices.
Source: MPC
