[ad_1]
The temporary law, registered at the initiative of Jurgita Sejonienė, a member of the Lithuanian Christian National-Democratic Union (TS-LKD) faction and a member of the Seimas Health Affairs Committee, aims to protect doctors working in emergency situations in cases of clinical negligence.
Although the no-fault damages model, which came into force a year ago, has already changed the situation and patients seeking compensation no longer have to prove a doctor’s fault, MEPs say doctors don’t feel completely safe not even under this system. According to her, this problem has only worsened during the pandemic.
“It seems to me that this is completely natural, because, first of all, there are many patients and the workloads are very high. Doctors are even forced to work outside of their specialty. Due to the huge workload, it is very difficult to show the same care and effort to all patients next time. This is not to say that doctors don’t try, they do their best, but if, for example, 6 patients die in resuscitation in one night, is it that doctors didn’t do something here, or is there a situation where physicists can Don’t you do something anymore? ”- J. Sejonienė taught the reasons for the project.
Some already have to sue
He stressed that even a no-fault system still does not guarantee that a doctor will avoid criminal prosecution.
According to the Seimas member, there are already those who are forced to sue for the incidents that occurred during the pandemic. He noted that such complaints refer to both fightsand other health services.
“I know of a specific case in which a patient approached the admissions department several times and the response was not adequate, as planned, and the services and examinations provided were limited, so the person’s leg had to be amputated without evaluating the condition, “he added. J. Sejonienė said.
He also recalled the number of excess deaths recorded, deaths at home that were not assessed as related to COVID-19.
“Remote consultation, while very useful in some cases, is not always the case. After all, you may recall that there were situations where they were encouraged. However, it is difficult to assess the patient’s condition in this way and The consequences of all this can only be updated after a while ”, explained the Seimas member.
Valid retroactively
According to the bill, with their consent, personal health professionals or volunteers who provided services during an emergency and / or quarantine due to the spread of COVID-19 would be exempt from criminal liability if personal negligence in providing of personal medical care resulted in disqualification, human life, slightly impaired health, severely impaired health, man left without assistance when his life is in danger.
People who work under certain conditions would avoid prosecution. For example, if the services are provided without the appropriate or optimal medical means (devices), medications and other means necessary for the provision of the services.
Likewise, if the relationship between the number, need and workload of medical personnel does not comply with the minimum and maximum amounts established by legal acts, the total scope of work functions and (or) the nature of the work or parts of the same has changed during the provision. of services.
“It simply does not mean that doctors are shirking their responsibilities. It is excluded that the law does not apply in such cases if there is gross negligence of the doctor, willful inaction, aggravating circumstances: intoxication by alcohol or drugs.
But we must understand that how stressful and difficult health professionals have had to work lately and that the desire to protect ourselves is natural. The more so since there are precedents in other countries ”, taught J. Sejonienė.
As indicated in the explanatory memorandum of the bill, initiatives have been raised and / or adopted to limit the liability of personal health professionals to varying degrees in several countries of the European Union and abroad: Belgium, Greece, Italy, the United Kingdom and the United States.
The interviewee indicated that said procedure would apply to the entire emergency period and retroactively if there were any event that the patient believed occurred because of the doctor.
Will the doctors relax too much?
However, my colleague Antanas Matulas was a bit more cautious in the face of such ambitions. The MP said he would be willing to discuss the law, but he also saw risks.
“I think maybe there was a bit of a rush, because once the model of harm to the patient without fault has been adopted, doctors practically no longer have criminal responsibility, because the patient proves the harm, but no longer has to prove guilt “. Of course, perhaps some heads of institutions will write some reprimands when they bend the stick.
However, I doubt that such a sudden debate could lead to the adoption of such a law and exempt doctors from liability. We have to communicate with the managers of some institutions, and they also express some concerns about whether it is done too soon, because it shows that even with the model without failures, some employees began to work a little more relaxed, “he said. indicated.
Not just doctors work in a pandemic
According to A. Matul, it could be worth improving the existing law, which, although it is not without flaws, has made the situation much easier.
“Otherwise, it would seem like an extreme again: to work without any responsibility. It is difficult to imagine how to explain to the patient in such a case: as soon as I work as I want, I will not come, now patients have to wait a few hours at the reception, because the doctors just don’t come.
Yes, most doctors work with dedication, but there are all kinds of cases where a doctor does not want to get up at night when an urgent patient arrives or attacks to moralize that he arrived on time, applied the weekend instead of the following. day and things like that. Who will guarantee that there will be none? So the question is, won’t such a law make things worse? I have many doubts, “said the parliamentarian.
He added that a pandemic or not a pandemic, but that he already suffers more, not because of the pandemic itself, but because of its consequences.
“By assessing excess deaths, we already stand out in the context of other countries. Of course, doctors cannot be blamed for this, and patients themselves are slow to apply, but there are all sorts of cases. The no-fault damage model is the one advocated now, and with liability eliminated, it would be difficult for a patient to explain how to advocate if another physician emerges who negligently, inappropriately, will not provide that assistance in a timely manner.
Among other things, many people work in the conditions of a pandemic: teachers, pilots and other professions, so why do we have to highlight something? ”, He reflected.
Patients have an interest in compensation
Neringa Čiakienė, president of the Oncology Patients Association (POLA), said she was not familiar with the project, but emphasized that the most important thing for patients was not to blacken the drug in any case, but to receive compensation.
“As far as I know, the current model of no-fault damages should guarantee all the provisions. Because the essence of the new model that was being developed was to facilitate the patient obtaining moral compensation. Of course, the understanding that the probability of error in the provision of any medical service remains and the responsibility cannot be imputed to the individual. Instead, we need to invest in system improvements to avoid these errors, “he said.
The interlocutor recalled that in the past, before the no-fault model came into force, it was practically impossible to obtain compensation.
“So, from the patients’ perspective, the most important thing for them is that the process itself is favorable. And the kind of criminal process that really matters little to them is that it would be bad for the doctor himself. This is not the best for them. the patient. Because everyone understands that only those who do not work are not wrong, “said a representative from POLA.
[ad_2]
