Estetik müdahalelerde hekimin hukuki sorumluluğu
Küçük Resim Yok
Tarih
2024
Yazarlar
Dergi Başlığı
Dergi ISSN
Cilt Başlığı
Yayıncı
İzmir Bakırçay Üniversitesi Lisansüstü Eğitim Enstitüsü
Erişim Hakkı
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
Özet
Tıbbi müdahalelerde hekimin hukuki sorumluluğu bakımından uygulanan hükümler Türk Borçlar Kanunu'nun 502. maddesi ve devamında düzenlenen vekalet sözleşmesi hükümleridir. Ancak estetik amaçlı tıbbi müdahaleler, diğer tıbbi müdahalelere kıyasla daha farklı özellikler teşkil ettiğinden uygulamada bir ayrıma gidilmiştir. Doktrinde farklı görüşler bulunmakla birlikte estetik amaçlı tıbbi müdahalelerde, bir sonuç garantisi verildiği ve tedavi amacı bulunmadığı sebebiyle, estetik cerrah ile hasta arasındaki hukuki ilişkinin eser sözleşmesi niteliğinde olduğu kabul edilmektedir. Dolayısıyla bu tür durumlarda tedavi amaçlı tıbbi müdahalelerden farklı olarak, Türk Borçlar Kanunu'nun 470. maddesi ve devamında düzenlenmiş olan eser sözleşmesi hükümleri uygulanmaktadır. Bu çalışmada, söz konusu iki sözleşme arasındaki farklılıklara değinilerek ve örnek Yargıtay kararlarına yer verilerek estetik müdahalelerde hekimin hukuki sorumluluğu hakkında inceleme yapılacaktır.
The provisions applied in terms of the legal responsibility of the physician in medical interventions are the provisions of the proxy agreement regulated in Article 502 and following of the Turkish Code of Obligations. However, since medical interventions for aesthetic purposes have different features compared to other medical interventions, a distinction has been made in practice. Although there are different opinions in the doctrine, it is accepted that the legal relationship between the plastic surgeon and the patient is in the nature of a contract of construction, since a result is guaranteed and there is no treatment purpose in medical interventions for aesthetic purposes. Therefore, in such cases, unlike therapeutic medical interventions, the provisions of the contract of construction regulated in Article 470 and the following articles of the Turkish Code of Obligations are applied. In this study, the legal responsibility of the physician in aesthetic interventions will be examined by mentioning the differences between these two contracts and including High Court precedents.
The provisions applied in terms of the legal responsibility of the physician in medical interventions are the provisions of the proxy agreement regulated in Article 502 and following of the Turkish Code of Obligations. However, since medical interventions for aesthetic purposes have different features compared to other medical interventions, a distinction has been made in practice. Although there are different opinions in the doctrine, it is accepted that the legal relationship between the plastic surgeon and the patient is in the nature of a contract of construction, since a result is guaranteed and there is no treatment purpose in medical interventions for aesthetic purposes. Therefore, in such cases, unlike therapeutic medical interventions, the provisions of the contract of construction regulated in Article 470 and the following articles of the Turkish Code of Obligations are applied. In this study, the legal responsibility of the physician in aesthetic interventions will be examined by mentioning the differences between these two contracts and including High Court precedents.
Açıklama
Anahtar Kelimeler
Hukuk, Law
