The son, daughter and wife of a foetal medicine specialist said they cried “tears of joy” when hearing the court order hospital authorities to allow an autopsy on the corpse.

“There is now a glimmer of light as we will be able to have the autopsy and then bury my father,” Naged Megally’s son, Polycarpus, said.

“When all of this is over, and we bury him, we can actually start mourning,” the 32-year-old added.

The widow, Margarita, however, said she and her family are still anxious since the hospital authorities can appeal the court’s decision.

Everyone should have the right to ask for an autopsy on a family member when there are unanswered questions, she insisted.

A judge concluded on Friday that the superintendent of public health and the Mater Dei Hospital CEO breached the family’s human rights after denying them a private autopsy to determine the cause of his death.

Megally died at Mater Dei Hospital last July after spending six weeks in intensive care. He was long afflicted by a neuromuscular condition and had a long and complicated medical history, which, according to his family, was not adequately diagnosed and assessed before medication was administered during his last weeks in hospital.

The doctor’s death followed a number of surgeries where the patient appeared to be making progress before his condition took a turn for the worse. His family said they were informed about a “mysterious” condition affecting the patient’s windpipe two days or so before his death and that was subsequently identified as the cause of death.

But the family was unconvinced and wanted an autopsy. Attempts in court to allow a private autopsy proved unsuccessful until yesterday, when the constitutional case they instituted concluded that an autopsy should take place.

Naged Megally was undergoing treatment for a rare disorder when he died at Mater Dei. Photo: Facebook/Megally family

The superintendent of public health and the Mater Dei CEO were given five days to appeal the decision. 

“We were exhausted. A year is a long time to wait for the truth,” Polycarpus said.

His sister, Anastasia, said that their lives have been on hold since July 2023. 

“Everyone has had his birthday. Christmas and Easter have passed and none of us have realised it; it’s as if we’re all stuck on July 5, 2023,” she said.

“It’s no joke to wait a year to have a funeral. All our lives have been affected; we’re all in limbo,” she added.

So why have they insisted on having their father’s body examined? 

“We want an autopsy to know the truth. We saw him get better over six weeks. He was breathing by himself; he was speaking to us and was even asking me to water the plants,” Anastasia said.

“All of a sudden, he got worse and we still don’t know why,” Polycarpus said.

Right breached

In court, lawyers Tonio Azzopardi and Ryan Falzon argued that the family’s fundamental right to private and family life had been breached by the health authorities.

Referring to European Court of Human Rights caselaw, the judge observed that foreign jurisprudence did not appear to have yet tackled the issue regarding whether the right to family life included the right to a private autopsy as requested in Megally’s case.

The family’s relationship to the late doctor undoubtedly fell within the definition of the right to family and private life and the quality of that relationship was hardly negatively impacted by his death.

Every person had a right to attend a relative’s funeral, Mr Justice Mark Simiana said.

Any autopsy or organ donation without the consent or against the will of the deceased’s family fell within the parameters of that fundamental right as defined under article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

It logically followed that the funeral and any intervention on the corpse were acts affecting that fundamental right because they had an impact not only on the relationship between the survivors and the deceased but also affected the relationship among the survivors themselves.

It was logical that death negatively impacted the family of the deceased and that negative effect was further accentuated when the cause of death was unknown or was being contested, as in Megally’s case, the court said.

It followed that the family’s right to know the cause of death also fell within the parameters of article 8.

The court pointed out that delays in releasing the corpse for autopsy were not attributable to the hospital but were caused by the criminal proceedings triggered by the family and, ultimately, rejected by the court.

As for the family’s insistence on the unconditional release of the corpse, the judge agreed with the hospital authorities that their refusal was a justified interference to the family’s fundamental right.

The authorities said that the cause of death was known but the family did not accept it and insisted on an autopsy. The hospital authorities agreed but the family wanted the procedure done in terms of a magisterial inquiry.

The family insisted on the autopsy being done by pathologists of their choice and demanded possession of their relative’s corpse. The court did not agree that the corpse was to be unconditionally released.

However, the court upheld the family’s suggestion for “alternative remedies”.

It concluded that the family’s fundamental right had been breached and ordered the Mater Dei CEO and the superintendent of public health to authorise the autopsy.

Family to select pathologists

That procedure is to be performed at Mater Dei within 15 days by two pathologists selected by the family from a list of specialists on the Medical Council register and paid for by the family.

The autopsy is to be conducted in the presence of an observer chosen by the hospital to ensure it was done according to applicable regulations.

Payment for that procedure has already been made by the family, who must also pay a quarter of the legal expenses.