Utólagos tájékoztatás az orvosi vizsgálatok/beavatkozások utáni igazmondás magánjogi aspektusai /
The starting point of my research begins in England with the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014: Regulation 20 – Duty of Candour, which requires honesty from doctors as a legal obligation for „notifiable safety incidents”. Since it has been noticed not only in En...
Elmentve itt :
| Szerző: | |
|---|---|
| Dokumentumtípus: | Cikk |
| Megjelent: |
Szegedi Tudományegyetem Állam- és Jogtudományi Kar
Szeged
2023
|
| Sorozat: | Acta Universitatis Szegediensis : forum : publicationes discipulorum iurisprudentiae
4 |
| Kulcsszavak: | Orvos-beteg kommunikáció, Orvos-beteg kapcsolat, Kommunikáció - orvosi, Magánjog |
| Tárgyszavak: | |
| Online Access: | http://acta.bibl.u-szeged.hu/82207 |
| Tartalmi kivonat: | The starting point of my research begins in England with the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014: Regulation 20 – Duty of Candour, which requires honesty from doctors as a legal obligation for „notifiable safety incidents”. Since it has been noticed not only in England but in the United States as well that the doctors’ honesty is beneficial both of the doctors and patients, I examined the domestic regulations and asked the following question and made a hypothesis: do we have a precise provision in the Act CLIV of 1997 (hereinafter: Eütv.) regarding the doctor’s honesty? If the doctor’s truthfulness is not precisely regulated, then it is not possible to enforce a claim in our legal system if the doctor violates his duty of honesty after certain examinations/treatments. Today, neither the Eütv. nor the Code of Ethics of the Hungarian Medical Chamber provide regulation under the word honesty; therefore, among the patient’s rights I decided to examine the right to information (in the Eütv). Within the patient’s right to information I analyzed closely a special institution – Eütv. § 13 (4) – that I have given a special name: the subsequent information. In my research I went back to two theories within bioethics, examined the content of the right to (subsequent) information, the institution of compensation – and all the anonymised court decisions available on the Internet – in which reference was made tot he Eütv. § 13 (4) – to answer my research question and the hypothesis. It was concluded that the domestic regulation regarding giving information to the patients after certain examinations/treatments need further clarification and that it is possible to enforce claims if the doctor fails to comply with his/her obligation to provide subsequent information. |
|---|---|
| Terjedelem/Fizikai jellemzők: | 73-99 |
| ISSN: | 2560-2802 |