Liability, doctor's obligation to inform, surgical intervention risks, inherent medical risks, liability without fault, Article L1142-1 Public Health Code, medical act risks, doctor's liability, proven fault, medical negligence, imprudence in medical practice, contractual liability, extra-contractual liability, medical decision-making algorithm, innovative surgical robot, validated medical protocol, medical standards, doctor-patient contract, medical malpractice compensation, medical fault, damage repair, medical risk disclosure, Strasbourg hospital, medical practice standards, healthcare law, medical jurisprudence, Cassation Court judgments, medical professional liability, technological advances in medicine, robot-assisted surgery, algorithm-based medical decisions, medical expert report, patient safety, healthcare sector regulations, medical treatment complications, post-operative care, pain management, medical imaging examinations.
Reader
Abstract
Extract
of 3
Abstract
A case study on medical liability for surgical risks and the doctor's obligation to inform patients about potential risks.
Extract
[...] This law transcends contractual and extra-contractual liabilities and it applies to public and private sectors. I. The absence of fault on the part of the doctors Article 1240: Medical liability is based on a fault, negligence or imprudence in the exercise of functions. Any fault causing damage obliges its author to repair. ArrêtOctober : The Court of Cassation recalls that there is no fault in following a medically validated protocol. Judgment March : The Court confirms that the liability of the medical professionaldoctor'liability is not engaged if the technology is used under supervision and in accordance with the standards. [...]
[...] Medical Liability Case Study Madeleine, who has been smoking cigarettes for a long time, suffers from sharp pains in the upper abdomen. She decides to consult her treating doctor, Dr. Fezco, who works at the hospital. He prescribes her only painkillers on the recommendation of a new medical decision-making algorithm acquired by the Strasbourg hospital. A few days later, Madeleine collapses in pain and is rushed to the hospital where an intervention is performed by Dr. Jacobs. The operation is performed using a surgical robot equipped with an algorithm that allows the robot to perform part of the operation on its own. [...]
[...] Judgment of 10 May 2011: This judgment recalls that the liability of a practitioner cannot be engaged due to the inherent risk of the medical actan alis a therapeutic approach, except in cases of proven faulte. In this case, following the operation, Madeleine complains about her scar, it is a possibility in case of surgical intervention, but there is no real direct fault on the part of the doctor. The doctor's obligation to inform the patient Judgment of 25 February 1997: a doctor must inform their patient about the possible risks related to the surgical intervention, however, a simple absence of'information is not sufficient to engage the doctor's liability if the risk has materialized without fault. [...]
[...] For a long time, the foundation of medical liability was a classic foundation, that of contractual liability. The Mercier judgment of the Court of Cassation had considered that true contract is formed between the doctor and the patient, involving several commitments for the practitioner' (Civ May 1936, Mercier). Then the law of 4 March 2002 intervened and it integrated articles L. 1142-1 and following of the Public Health Code. It sets the principle of liability for the doctor's fault, who fails to meet his obligations of care, safety or information. [...]
