Two physicians faced charges in the Court of First Instance and Instruction No. 3 of Elda, accused of reckless manslaughter in connection with the care provided to eight-year-old Aitor. The child, who later died in Petrer after a troubling pattern of emergency room visits, had been admitted multiple times in 2020 for severe abdominal pain linked to peritonitis. At the latest hearing, both doctors denied allegations of medical malpractice and asserted that their decisions and actions were appropriate given the presenting symptoms and available information.
The two clinicians—the first from the Elda General Hospital Emergency Department and the other from a Petrer health center—refused to answer questions posed by the opposing side. Their responses were limited to questions from their attorneys and, when present, the investigating judge who leads the private prosecution on behalf of Aitor’s mother, Marta Gonzálvez Alba, in what has become a high-profile case in the region.
Second year of MIR
According to people close to the incident, the Elda General Hospital emergency physician, who was in his second year of the MIR program, appeared in court in October 2020 in reasonably good health and reported that he was without pain, a statement that seemed to contradict the mother’s formal complaint. The account suggests a tension between what was observed at the bedside and what the family reported at home.
The same source notes that the child did not present with a fever during the visit, and the professional indicated that no further testing was undertaken because he judged the situation to be stable. Additionally, since no clear pathology emerged during the examination, he did not consider it necessary to consult another fellow clinician at the center.
Aitor’s mother, who has been credited by some witnesses as acting as his caregiver since infancy, was a central figure in the inquiry. The Petrer health center doctor testified that, although the family sought relief for the boy’s suffering, there were parts of the night when the family’s directions and the doctor’s own assessment diverged. The grandmother, who held custody, was said to have asked for hands-on relief at home, while the doctor contended that his own workload and the demands of a late-night schedule affected his ability to escalate care. The health center physician maintained that these events were not documented in the center’s records and argued that fatigue and shift pressure could explain the perceived lapse in care.
Child assistance
The charge against both doctors arose after an expert assessment concluded there had been negligence in the child’s treatment. In the emergency department, prosecutors say, the doctor discharged the child without pursuing additional diagnostic tests that might have revealed the underlying issue. At the Petrer health center, the physician is accused of administering a medication not recommended for a child, a decision that prosecutors argue could have accelerated the progression of peritonitis and contributed to Aitor’s death.
Aitor collapsed in his home bathroom early on October 28, 2020, after suffering four days of vomiting and intense abdominal pain. Across the medical visits, the professionals provided fluids, pain relief, and antiemetic treatment but did not perform an ultrasound or any in-depth analysis aimed at identifying the root cause of the symptoms. The mother’s complaint states that a urine test was performed simply to rule out diabetes, a test that may have seemed routine but did not address the serious abdominal condition that ultimately claimed the child’s life.
As the case unfolds in court, the families and medical professionals are navigating a legal process that seeks to determine whether the care rendered met standard medical practice or if avoidable errors contributed to the tragedy. The court will weigh expert testimony, patient history, and incident records to establish the degree of responsibility, if any, held by the physicians involved and to clarify the timeline of clinical decisions in the days leading up to the child’s death. The proceedings underscore the intense scrutiny that accompanies pediatric emergency care and the standards by which professional judgment is measured in difficult, high-pressure circumstances. (The proceedings have drawn widespread attention from the local community and health professionals who watch closely for implications regarding clinical guidelines and patient safety.)
Aitor’s mother has publicly urged accountability and justice, saying that the child deserved timely and thorough medical attention. The case continues to shape discussions around pediatric care protocols, the handling of non-urgent referrals, and the greater need for clear documentation in busy emergency settings. In the courtroom, both sides will likely revisit the balance between clinical judgment under pressure and the obligation to pursue comprehensive evaluation when symptoms persist or worsen, especially in a child presenting with persistent abdominal pain and vomiting.