Ölümle sonuçlanmamış tıbbi uygulama hatası iddialarından kaynaklanan tam yargı davalarında alınan adli tıp kurumu bilirkişi raporlarının danıştay içtihatlarına etkisi
Yükleniyor...
Dosyalar
Tarih
2022
Yazarlar
Dergi Başlığı
Dergi ISSN
Cilt Başlığı
Yayıncı
Bakırçay Üniversitesi Lisansüstü Eğitim Enstitüsü
Erişim Hakkı
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
Özet
ABD’de başlayan ve günümüzde hızla artış gösteren malpraktis (tıbbi uygulama hatası) davaları gerek sağlık hizmet personelleri gerek hastalar için büyük öneme sahiptir. Malpraktis ile ilgili yargı kararlarında muhakkak bilirkişi raporları istenmektedir. Ülkemizde resmi bilirkişilik kurumu olarak bilinen Adli Tıp Kurumu raporlarına dayanılarak Danıştay tarafından çeşitli hükümler verilmektedir. Adli Tıp Kurumu kendisine tevdi edilen dosyada tıbbi bilirkişi sıfatıyla rapor sunmaktadır. Yargı önüne gelen gerek ceza davaları gerekse de hukuk davalarında kast ve kusurun belirlenmesi sunulan bilirkişi raporlarıyla tespit edilmektedir.
Bu çalışmada, Adli Tıp Kurumu’ndan gelen tıbbi bilirkişi raporları ışığında verilen Danıştay içtihatları incelenmiş, verilen kararlarının nedenleri tartışılmıştır. Yargılamanın hüküm evresinde bilirkişilik kavramı, ülkemizdeki resmi bilirkişilik kurumları, malpraktis kavramı, tıbbi uygulamanın hukuka uygunluk şartları, hekim-hasta arasındaki hukuki nitelik, tam yargı davaları ve en son ölümle sonuçlanmayan tıbbi kötü uygulama hatalarından kaynaklı tam yargı davalarında Adli Tıp Kurumu raporlarının Danıştay’a etkileri değerlendirilmiştir.
Sunulan çalışmada, 2014-2022 yılları arasında malpraktis iddiası ileri sürülerek Danıştay’da açılan tam yargı davaları incelenmiştir. Danıştay’ın yüksek oranda bozma kararı verdiği, bu kararların; eksik inceleme, usulden bozma, manevi tazminata hükmedilmesi gerektiği, üniversite hastanesinden bilirkişi incelemesi gerektiği, bilgilendirilmiş rıza eksikliği, idarenin kusursuz sorumluluğu, sağlık yönetiminin özensiz ve denetimsiz yapılmasından bahisle verildiği tespit edilmiştir.
Yüksek öneme haiz olan bilirkişilik kavramı, Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi’nin Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Devleti’ni yargıladığı 2016 yılı Aydoğdu kararında da bilirkişi rapor özellikleri göz önünde bulundurularak Danıştay kararları incelenmiştir. Sunulan çalışmaya bilirkişi raporlarının değerlendirildiği Anayasa Mahkemesi kararları da eklenmiştir.
Çalışmamızda tespit ettiğimiz önemli hususlar doğrultusunda; sağlık personellerinin malpraktis kavramına yeterince önem vermediği, adli mercilerin isteklerine yönelik tıbbi bilirkişi raporlarının tam ve eksiksiz düzenlenmesi için Adli Tıp Kurumu’nda yeni düzenlemelere ihtiyaç duyulduğu, Tıp ve Hukuk bilimlerinin disiplinler arası bir işbirliği içerisinde olması gerektiğinden tıbbi uygulama hatası iddiaları başta olmak üzere bilirkişilik gereksinimlerin tıp/sağlık hukuku bilim uzmanlarından görüş alınmasının mevcut sorunların çözümüne katkıda bulunacağı kanaati doğmuştur.
Sonuç olarak; yukarıda belirtilen hususlar nedeniyle, malpraktis iddiaları hukuk mercileri tarafından irdelenmekte, ülkemizde her geçen gün bu davalar katlanarak artış göstermektedir. Mevcut sorunların çözümünde öncelikli olarak Malpraktis Kanunu’nun düzenlemesi ve hukukun bu konuya bakışının net olarak ortaya koyulması gerektiği düşüncesindeyiz.
Malpractice (medical malpractice) cases, which started in the USA and are increasing rapidly today, are of great importance for both health care personnel and patients. Expert reports are definitely required in judicial decisions regarding malpractice. Various judgments are given by the Council of State based on the reports of the Forensic Medicine Institute, which is known as the official expert witness institution in our country. The Forensic Medicine Institute presents a report as a medical expert in the file entrusted to it. Determination of intent and fault in both criminal and civil cases before the judiciary is determined by the expert reports submitted. In this study, the case law of the Council of State given in the light of medical expert reports from the Forensic Medicine Institute was examined and the reasons for its decisions were discussed. During the judgment phase of the trial, the effects of the Forensic Medicine Institute reports on the Council of State were evaluated in the case of full jurisdiction due to the concept of expertise, the official expertise institutions in our country, the concept of malpractice, the legality of medical practice, the legal qualifications between the physician and the patient, the cases of full remedy and the last medical malpractice that did not result in death. In the present study, full remedy cases filed in the Council of State between the years 2014-2022, alleging malpractice, were examined. It is stated that the Council of State has a high rate of reversal of these decisions; It has been determined that it was given with the mention of incomplete examination, violation of procedure, non-pecuniary damages, the need for an expert examination from the university hospital, the lack of informed consent, faultless liability of Administration, the careless and unsupervised health management. The concept of expertise, which is of high importance, has also been examined in the decisions of the Council of State in the 2016 Aydoğdu decision of the European Court of Human Rights, in which the State of the Republic of Turkey was tried, taking into account the characteristics of the expert report. The decisions of the Constitutional Court, in which the expert reports were evaluated, were also added to the presented study. In line with the important points we have identified in our study; health personnel do not attach enough importance to the concept of malpractice, There is a need for new regulations in the Forensic Medicine Institute for the full and complete preparation of medical expert reports for the requests of judicial authorities, Since medicine and legal sciences should be in an interdisciplinary cooperation, it is believed that getting opinions from medical/health law science experts will contribute to the solution of existing problems, especially in the claims of medical malpractice. As a result; due to the above-mentioned issues, malpractice claims are being scrutinized by the legal authorities, and these cases are increasing exponentially every day in our country. We think that in the solution of the current problems, the regulation of the Malpractice Law and the view of the law on this issue should be clearly revealed.
Malpractice (medical malpractice) cases, which started in the USA and are increasing rapidly today, are of great importance for both health care personnel and patients. Expert reports are definitely required in judicial decisions regarding malpractice. Various judgments are given by the Council of State based on the reports of the Forensic Medicine Institute, which is known as the official expert witness institution in our country. The Forensic Medicine Institute presents a report as a medical expert in the file entrusted to it. Determination of intent and fault in both criminal and civil cases before the judiciary is determined by the expert reports submitted. In this study, the case law of the Council of State given in the light of medical expert reports from the Forensic Medicine Institute was examined and the reasons for its decisions were discussed. During the judgment phase of the trial, the effects of the Forensic Medicine Institute reports on the Council of State were evaluated in the case of full jurisdiction due to the concept of expertise, the official expertise institutions in our country, the concept of malpractice, the legality of medical practice, the legal qualifications between the physician and the patient, the cases of full remedy and the last medical malpractice that did not result in death. In the present study, full remedy cases filed in the Council of State between the years 2014-2022, alleging malpractice, were examined. It is stated that the Council of State has a high rate of reversal of these decisions; It has been determined that it was given with the mention of incomplete examination, violation of procedure, non-pecuniary damages, the need for an expert examination from the university hospital, the lack of informed consent, faultless liability of Administration, the careless and unsupervised health management. The concept of expertise, which is of high importance, has also been examined in the decisions of the Council of State in the 2016 Aydoğdu decision of the European Court of Human Rights, in which the State of the Republic of Turkey was tried, taking into account the characteristics of the expert report. The decisions of the Constitutional Court, in which the expert reports were evaluated, were also added to the presented study. In line with the important points we have identified in our study; health personnel do not attach enough importance to the concept of malpractice, There is a need for new regulations in the Forensic Medicine Institute for the full and complete preparation of medical expert reports for the requests of judicial authorities, Since medicine and legal sciences should be in an interdisciplinary cooperation, it is believed that getting opinions from medical/health law science experts will contribute to the solution of existing problems, especially in the claims of medical malpractice. As a result; due to the above-mentioned issues, malpractice claims are being scrutinized by the legal authorities, and these cases are increasing exponentially every day in our country. We think that in the solution of the current problems, the regulation of the Malpractice Law and the view of the law on this issue should be clearly revealed.
Açıklama
Anahtar Kelimeler
Tıbbi uygulama hatası, Tıbbi bilirkişilik, Adli Tıp Kurumu, Danıştay, İdari yargı davası, Medical malpractice, Medical expertise, Forensic Medicine Institute, Council of State, Administrative court case
