ANALYSIS OF THE HIGH COURT DECISIONS ON INFORMED CONSENT CASES IN TURKEY FROM A FORENSIC POINT OF VIEW

Abstract

Informed consent is linked to the principle of patient autonomy and has an important place in common medical codes of conduct and legislative regulations. The aim of this study is to determine the judgments and reviews of the high court (Yargıtay) related to informed consent and to discuss them from a medicolegal aspect within Turkish jurisprudence. In the search engine of the website publishing high court decisions, the keywords “informed consent”, “information”, “consent” and “assent” were used without any date limitation. In this study, N=32 high court judgments were investigated. The data obtained were analyzed in light of the literature and guidelines. In 23 of the cases (71.9%) surgical interventions requiring general anesthesia were performed. In the other 9 cases (28.1%) surgical interventions not requiring general anesthesia and medical interventions with diagnostic and/or treatment purposes were performed. There was a statistically significant difference between the groups with informed consent and without informed consent for “surgical interventions not requiring general anesthesia and medical interventions with diagnostic and/or treatment purposes”. The high court identified that in 17 of the cases (53.1%) informed consent was not present while in 15 (46.9%) informed consent was obtained. The court could not prove that informed consent was obtained in 15/17 cases in the group without consent, while in 7/15 cases in the consent group inadequate informed consent was obtained. The high court interrogated the extent and adequacy of informed consent for all types of surgical interventions both requiring and not requiring general anesthesia and medical interventions with diagnostic and/or treatment purposes. The types of surgical and medical interventions that require written informed consent and the aims of informed consent should be re-evaluated.

Keywords

• inadequate informed consent,malpractice,physician

Kaynakça

1. REFERENCES
2. ALTUN, G., YORULMAZ, A.C. 2010, Yasal değişiklikler sonrası hekim sorumluluğu ve malpraktis. Trakya Univ Tip FakDerg, 27(1), 7-12. ART OF MEDICINE LAW, 1928. Pertaining to the Performance of the Art of Medicine and its Branches Law (TababetveŞuabatıSan'atlarınınTarzıİcrasınaDairKanun (1219), https://hizmetstandartlari.saglik.gov.tr/TR,5005/tababet-ve-suabati-sanatlarinin-tarzi-icrasina-dair-kanun-1219.html, Date Accessed: 01 May 2018. AUSTRALIAN COMMISION ON SAFETY AND QUALITY IN HEALTH CARE (ACSQHC). 2012, “Informed Consent: Safety and Quality Improvement Guide Standard 1: Governance of Safety and Quality in Health Service Organisations”. Sydney: Australian Commision on Safety and Quality in Health Care (ACSQHC).https://www.safetyandquality.gov.au/, Date Accessed: 01 May 2018. CAKMAK, C , DEMİR, H., KIDAK, L.B. 2017, A research on examination of medical errors through court judgments. J TurgutOzal Med Cent, 24(4), 443-9. CAN, İ.Ö., ÖZKARA, E., CAN, M. 2011, Yargıtayda karara bağlanan tıbbi uygulama hatası dosyalarının değerlendirilmesi. DEÜ Tıp FakültesiDergisi, 25( 2), 69 -76. COUNCIL OF EUROPE OVIEDO/BIOMEDICINE CONVENTION. 1997, Convention for the protection of human rights and dignity of the human being with regard to the application of biology and medicine: convention on human rights and biomedicine (CETS No. 164), Oviedo. COURT OF CASSATION/YARGITAY,2018. Yargıtay Başkanliği, https://www.yargitay.gov.tr/, Date Accessed: 01 May 2018. DEMİR, R. Üreme hakkına ilişkin tıbbi müdahalelerde rıza. TBB Dergisi, (133), 269-298. EKMEKCİ, P.E., EKMEKCİ, A.B., KARAKAS, Ö., KULDUK, A., ARDA, B. 2016, Evaluation of the informed consent procedure for total knee arthroplasty patients in Turkey. Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica, (50), 400-404. EŞ, H., ÖZER, Y., LİMAN, Z., ŞANLI, A.N. 2017, General surgery malpractice claims in Turkey. Rom J Leg Med, (2),272-278. GÜLEL, İ. 2011, Tıbbi müdahale sözleşmesine uygulanacak hükümler. TAAD, (5), 585-644. GUNDOGMUS, U.N., ERDOGAN, M.S., SEHİRALTI, M., KURTAS O. 2005, A descriptive study of medical malpractice cases in Turkey. Ann Saudi Med, 25(5), 404-408. HWANG, C.Y., WU, C.H., CHENG, F.C., YEN, Y.L., WU, K.H. 2018, A 12-year analysis of closed medical malpractice claims of the Taiwan civil court: A retrospective study. Medicine, 97(13), e0237. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000010237. KURT, E., UCAR, M., ATAC, A. 2016, Quality of an informed consent prior to a surgical intervention? Experience of a teaching hospital. Pak J Med Sci, 32(1), 206-210. KÜÇÜKER, H. 2012, Cerrahi Müdahale Gören Hastalarda Aydınlatma ve Onam Formları Yeterli mi? Nobel Med, 8(3), 40-43. PATIENT RIGHTS REGULATION, 1998/2014. Hasta Hakları Yönetmeliği, Sağlık Bakanlığı, https://www.saglik.gov.tr/TR,10461/hasta-haklari-yonetmeligi.html, Date Accessed: 01 May 2018. TMA INFORMED CONSENT GUIDE,2010.Aydınlatılmış onam kılavuzu,Türk Tabipleri Birliği,http://www.ttb.org.tr/mevzuat/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=983:onam&catid=26:etik&Itemid=65, Date Accessed: 01 May 2018. TMA PROFESSIONAL ETHICS RULES IN MEDICINE, 1999. Hekimlik meslek etiği kuralları, Türk Tabipleri Birliği, https://www.ttb.org.tr/kutuphane/h_etikkural.pdf, Date Accessed: 01 May 2018. VILA-NOVA DA SILVA, D.B., NAHAS. F.X., FERREIRA, L.M. 2015, Factors influencing judicial decisions on medical disputes in plastic surgery. AesthetSurg J, (35), 477-83. WILLIAMS, R.J. 2005, WMA MEDICAL ETHICS MANUAL. Dünya Tabipleri Birliği Tıp Etiği El Kitabı, Çev: Dr. M. Murat Civaner, Türk Tabipleri Birliği Yayınları, Gözdengeçirilmiş3.baskı, Ankara, ISBN-978-605-9665-17-9. YILMAZ, A. 2015, Hekimin hastayı aydınlatma yükümlülüğü, Thesis (Master’s Degree), Çankaya Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Özel Hukuk Anabilim Dalı, Ankara.