Archive : Volume - 4, Issue - 11, Month - November
1 Evaluating the Efficiency of the Informed Consent Forms of the Patient Files Which Were Notified of Erroneous Medical Intervention
- Birkan Tapan* ,
- Taner GÜVEN ,
- Albena GAYEF ,
- Selin ALICI ,
- Ersi ABACI KALFOĞLU
- Abstract
- Show Article
- Download : 195
- Certificate
Abstract : If a medical intervention was lawfully performed, a criminal liability does not exist under any circumstances. Only liability arising from an erroneous medical intervention can be related with the concepts of penal law, obligations law, and compensation liability of the administration. Likewise, disciplinary practices of trade bodies such as Medical chambers can be brought to agenda due to erroneous medical intervention. Therefore, it is vitally important to ensure the existence of legal bases before any medical intervention. “Informed consent” is the most important document ensuring that a medical intervention is legal. When the understanding of patient-oriented health services was adopted in North American and European countries in the twenty-first century, the views supporting the patients’ making their own medical decisions about themselves started to replace the provider-oriented approach. In order for the persons to take part in the decisions made regarding their health, they must be fully informed about their medical statuses and the treatment options. The informed consent is important for patient rights, as well as for the physicians’ right in case of a complication. The purpose of this study is to determine whether the legal requirements of the informed consent process in the erroneous medical practices that were reflected on the Istanbul Medical Chamber, and set forth the medical and legal results on the files with no Informed Consent Form. In the study, 1528 patient files regarding erroneous medical practice that were informed to the Istanbul Medical Chamber between 2009 and 2014 by the victim or the victim’s relatives were examined, it was observed that 72.2% of the files had no informed consent form, whereas 27.8% of them had one. It was observed that 44.9% of the existing Informed consents were printed but inadequate, 54.1% of them were printed and adequate, 0.7% of them were specially written for the patient but inadequate, and 0.3% of them were specially written for the patient and adequate.
Keyword : Patient Rights, Erroneous Medical Intervention, Informed Consent
Login
Loading....
Author Guideline
Copyright Form
News Update
Archive List
- Volume-11
- Volume-10
- January 2023 Issue 1
- January 2023 Issue 1
- February 2023 Issue 2
- March 2023 Issue 3
- March 2023 Issue 3
- April 2023 Issue 4
- April 2023 Issue 4
- May 2023 Issue 5
- May 2023 Issue 5
- May 2023 Issue 5
- June 2023 Issue 6
- June 2023 Issue 6
- July 2023 Issue 7
- July 2023 Issue 7
- August 2023 Issue 8
- August 2023 Issue 8
- September 2023 Issue 9
- October 2023 Issue 10
- November 2023 Issue 11
- December 2023 Issue 12
- Volume-9
- January 2022 Issue 1
- February 2022 Issue 2
- March 2022 Issue 3
- April 2022 Issue 4
- May 2022 Issue 5
- June 2022 Issue 6
- July 2022 Issue 7
- July 2022 Issue 7
- July 2022 Issue 7
- July 2022 Issue 7
- August 2022 Issue 8
- September 2022 Issue 9
- October 2022 Issue 10
- October 2022 Issue 10
- November 2022 Issue 11
- November 2022 Issue 11
- November 2022 Issue 11
- December 2022 Issue 12
- Volume-8
- January 2021 Issue 1
- February 2021 Issue 2
- February 2021 Issue 2
- March 2021 Issue 3
- April 2021 Issue 4
- May 2021 Issue 5
- June 2021 Issue 6
- June 2021 Issue 6
- June 2021 Issue 6
- July 2021 Issue 7
- August 2021 Issue 8
- September 2021 Issue 9
- October 2021 Issue 10
- November 2021 Issue 11
- December 2021 Issue 12
- Volume-7
- January 2020 Issue 1
- January 2020 Issue 1
- February 2020 Issue 2
- March 2020 Issue 3
- March 2020 Issue 3
- March 2020 Issue 3
- April 2020 Issue 4
- April 2020 Issue 4
- May 2020 Issue 5
- May 2020 Issue 5
- May 2020 Issue 5
- June 2020 Issue 6
- June 2020 Issue 6
- June 2020 Issue 6
- July 2020 Issue 7
- August 2020 Issue 8
- September 2020 Issue 9
- October 2020 Issue 10
- November 2020 Issue 11
- December 2020 Issue 12
- December 2020 Issue 12
- Volume-6
- January 2019 Issue 1
- February 2019 Issue 2
- March 2019 Issue 3
- April 2019 Issue 4
- April 2019 Issue 4
- May 2019 Issue 5
- May 2019 Issue 5
- June 2019 Issue 6
- June 2019 Issue 6
- July 2019 Issue 7
- July 2019 Issue 7
- August 2019 Issue 8
- September 2019 Issue 9
- September 2019 Issue 9
- September 2019 Issue 9
- October 2019 Issue 10
- November 2019 Issue 11
- November 2019 Issue 11
- November 2019 Issue 11
- December 2019 Issue 12
- Volume-5
- January 2018 Issue 1
- January 2018 Issue 1
- February 2018 Issue 2
- March 2018 Issue 3
- April 2018 Issue 4
- May 2018 Issue 5
- June 2018 Issue 6
- July 2018 Issue 7
- August 2018 Issue 8
- September 2018 Issue 9
- September 2018 Issue 9
- October 2018 Issue 10
- October 2018 Issue 10
- November 2018 Issue 11
- December 2018 Issue 12
- December 2018 Issue 12
- Volume-4
- January 2017 Issue 1
- February 2017 Issue 2
- February 2017 Issue 2
- March 2017 Issue 3
- April 2017 Issue 4
- April 2017 Issue 4
- May 2017 Issue 5
- June 2017 Issue 6
- June 2017 Issue 6
- June 2017 Issue 6
- June 2017 Issue 6
- July 2017 Issue 7
- August 2017 Issue 8
- August 2017 Issue 8
- September 2017 Issue 9
- October 2017 Issue 10
- November 2017 Issue 11
- December 2017 Issue 12
- December 2017 Issue 12
- December 2017 Issue 12
- Volume-3
- January 2016 Issue 1
- February 2016 Issue 2
- March 2016 Issue 3
- April 2016 Issue 4
- May 2016 Issue 5
- June 2016 Issue 6
- June 2016 Issue 6
- July 2016 Issue 7
- July 2016 Issue 7
- July 2016 Issue 7
- August 2016 Issue 8
- September 2016 Issue 9
- October 2016 Issue 10
- October 2016 Issue 10
- November 2016 Issue 11
- November 2016 Issue 11
- December 2016 Issue 12
- Volume-2
- Volume-1
Statastics
Download of Articles
107,985