Seven medical professionals have been cleared of involuntary homicide over the death of a two-year-old girl in hospital 12 years ago. 

The child was admitted to hospital suffering from symptoms of gastroenteritis. She was running a fever and vomiting when first admitted to St James Hospital where she was diagnosed with gastric flu. 

A specialist consultant referred her to Mater Dei Hospital to be rehydrated by being placed on a drip. 

Soon after, the child's parents developed similar symptoms. 

Blood tests showed that the child had signs of infection. Three days after being admitted to hospital, a basic specialist trainee noted that the child was "very lethargic... febrile up to 102 degrees F... wakes up and cries for a few seconds and goes back to sleep..... Looks comfortable but very lethargic.... no rashes, no meningal signs. "

Soon after she suffered cardiopulmonary arrest. Attempts to resuscitate her proved futile and the child died.

An autopsy report said that the death was due to "natural causes, namely meningitis, proven bacteriologically to be streptococcal in origin."

The prosecution charged that all seven medical professionals had been careless in the exercise of their profession. 

The young girl's condition was evidently deteriorating yet they failed to carry out further tests including a lumbar puncture.

The prosecution and lawyer for the family insisted that if such further tests had been carried out, the source of the infection would have been identified and the child's death would have been avoided.

The court observed that each doctor was to be judged on the basis of his own actions without reference to the conduct of other co-accused. Nor were they to answer for any shortcomings or defects in the system applicable in the relative medical institution.

The clinical notes in the child's medical file were important because they shed light on the conduct of each of the co-accused. over and above the blood tests so as to determine the cause of infection. Faced with all those symptoms, they had also failed to suspect that the cause was meningitis.

The defence insisted that the child's clinical chart and medical history consistently pointed at gastroenteritis. At no stage of her stay in hospital was there a specific symptom to reasonably trigger suspicion of meningitis.

In the light of all evidence put forward the court, presided by Magistrate Rachel Montebello, concluded that each of the co-accused had adopted an approach that was adequate and reasonable, based on clinical tests and the young patient's medical history. 

Their conduct was in line with correct and well-established practices in the field of medicine. 

It observed that a court appointed medical expert concluded that ".... there was no reason for the clinicians to have suspected meningitis" when the child was alive, "either from her initial acute clinical presentation or from subsequent monitoring" in hospital. 

The same expert pointed out further that a lumbar puncture was "a very traumatic test, particularly in a child.... You don't do it willy-nilly on anybody who comes to the hospital door."

The court said it was satisfied that each of the doctors did all that was reasonably and ordinarily expected of a prudent doctor who is not duty-bound to adopt ultra-precautionary or defensive measures that were not called for nor necessary in the circumstances. 

Lawyers Michael, Lucio Sciriha and Joe Giglio variously assisted the accused.

The court ordered a ban on the publication of all names.