HOW CAN ASIAN COUNTRIES DEAL WITH MEDICAL LIABILITY AND PATIENT COMPENSATION

All around the world countries are trying to find a solution to deal with medical liability and patient compensation. Some legal orders have opted for a no-fault system, in which the patient is compensated once certain requisites are fulfilled, which are apparently less demanding than the ones required for granting compensation in light of tort liability. However, many of the advantages of the no-fault model are actually illusory. In addition, this model is not suitable for most legal orders and certainly not for Asian countries, as the present paper intends to demonstrate. Conversely, we sustain the maintenance of the traditional model based on negligence (from the doctor or from the institution), but modified and complemented by some notes typical of the no-fault system and by the so-called alternative dispute resolution mechanisms.&nbsp

The unbearable lightness of culpability: the compensation for damages in the practice of medicine

In face of the growing difficulties presented by tort liability in dealing with medical malpractice and patient's compensation, many advocate the imple mentation of a no-fault system, i.e., a mechanism in which the patient is compensated through an economic fund of risk socialization, in disregard of the demonstration of the physician's negligence. In this study, we compared the main notes of the no-fault model with the classical model grounded in culpability, to determine which one is the most suitable in terms of justice, improvement of health care delivery and patient's safety. We concluded that, despite the fact that the no-fault model carries many advantages, it also involves se veral difficulties, risks and fragilities. In particular, it is doubtful that it promotes diligence in health delivery, since usually the health care professional does not suffer any sanction. Furthermore, it can only operate successfully in light of very particular conditions, not found in the majority of legal orders. Therefore, we do not consider it the most adequate solution, at least when implemented as a general mechanism to deal with injuries caused by medical treatments.Diante das crescentes dificuldades apresentadas pela responsabilidade civil para lidar com a má -prática médica e com a compensação aos pacien tes, muitos advogam a implementação do sistema no-fault , isto é, um mecanismo no qual o paciente é compensado por via de um fundo económico de socialização do risco, independentemente da de monstração de negligência por parte do médico. Neste estudo comparámos as principais notas do modelono-fault com o clássico modelo fundado na culpa, com vista a determinar qual o mais adequa do em termos de justiça, melhoria dos cuidados de saúde e segurança do paciente. Concluímos que, apesar de o modelono-fault trazer muitas vantagens, também envolve sérias difi culdades, riscos e fragilidades. Nomeadamente, é duvidoso que promova a diligência na prestação de cuidados médicos, dado que em regra não se verifica qualquer sanção para o profissional de saúde. Além disso, só pode operar com sucesso em condições mui to concretas, que não se encontram na maior parte das ordens jurídicas. Por conseguinte, não cremos que seja a solução mais adequada, pelo menos quan do implementada como um mecanismo geral para lidar com danos causados por tratamentos médicos

Abstracts

Tradução para a língua inglesa dos resumos dos artigos publicados nesta edição