The Standards of Proof in Medical Malpractice Cases

IF 0.1 Q4 LAW
Nina Cek
{"title":"The Standards of Proof in Medical Malpractice Cases","authors":"Nina Cek","doi":"10.18690/mls.13.2.173-196.2020","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article examines the procedural aspect of medical malpractice cases. It focuses on the differences in standards of proof by first explaining the characteristics of the Slovenian legal system and then comparing it with German and English legal systems. The author sheds light on the approach of the EU court on the question of the responsibility of the manufacturer for the product (vaccine) and suggests the direction to use a broader framework for the evaluation of evidence and presumptions. Given the disclosed problems of proving through the help of a medical expert, the article emphasizes the importance of respect for human rights in civil proceedings. Particular emphasis is also placed on no-fault systems and the question is raised of how the introduction of such a system into the Slovenian legal system would affect the perceived problem of proving a medical error and informed consent omission.","PeriodicalId":54182,"journal":{"name":"MEDICINE AND LAW","volume":"79 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2020-10-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"MEDICINE AND LAW","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18690/mls.13.2.173-196.2020","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The article examines the procedural aspect of medical malpractice cases. It focuses on the differences in standards of proof by first explaining the characteristics of the Slovenian legal system and then comparing it with German and English legal systems. The author sheds light on the approach of the EU court on the question of the responsibility of the manufacturer for the product (vaccine) and suggests the direction to use a broader framework for the evaluation of evidence and presumptions. Given the disclosed problems of proving through the help of a medical expert, the article emphasizes the importance of respect for human rights in civil proceedings. Particular emphasis is also placed on no-fault systems and the question is raised of how the introduction of such a system into the Slovenian legal system would affect the perceived problem of proving a medical error and informed consent omission.
医疗事故案件的举证标准
本文探讨医疗事故案件的程序问题。它首先解释斯洛文尼亚法律制度的特点,然后将其与德国和英国的法律制度进行比较,重点讨论证明标准的差异。提交人阐明了欧盟法院在产品(疫苗)制造商责任问题上的做法,并提出了使用更广泛的框架来评估证据和假设的方向。鉴于通过医学专家的帮助进行证明所暴露的问题,该条强调了在民事诉讼中尊重人权的重要性。还特别强调了无过错制度,并提出了一个问题,即在斯洛文尼亚法律制度中引入这种制度将如何影响证明医疗错误和知情同意遗漏的已知问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信