Gevers J K M
Academisch Medisch Centrum/Universiteit van Amsterdam, afd. Sociale Geneeskunde, sectie Gezondheidsrecht, Amsterdam.
Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2007 Aug 4;151(31):1713-5.
Of 278 patients who were referred to a tertiary centre because of a bile-duct injury incurred during a laparoscopic cholecystectomy, 19% had sued the doctor or hospital involved. This percentage is relatively low compared with data from the US, and also if compared with the much larger group of patients who believe that their injury was due to medical negligence. When patients perceive their injury in this way, malpractice litigation is not the only option available to them; they can also lodge a complaint with the hospital's complaint committee or with the medical disciplinary board. If such complaints are found justified, this increases the chance of a settlement without court proceedings. Patients should be informed about the possibility of bile-duct injury during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Apart from the legal obligation to do so, an informed patient will be less inclined to attribute the injury automatically to a medical error. Finally, the high number of complications and claims justifies further debate on whether a no-fault compensation system is to be preferred over the present system of compensation based on medical negligence.
在因腹腔镜胆囊切除术期间发生胆管损伤而被转诊至三级医疗中心的278名患者中，19%的患者起诉了相关医生或医院。与美国的数据相比，这一比例相对较低，而且与那些认为自己的损伤是医疗过失所致的规模大得多的患者群体相比也是如此。当患者以这种方式看待自己的损伤时，医疗事故诉讼并非他们唯一的选择；他们还可以向医院投诉委员会或医疗纪律委员会提出投诉。如果此类投诉被认定合理，这将增加不经法庭诉讼达成和解的可能性。应告知患者腹腔镜胆囊切除术期间发生胆管损伤的可能性。除了这样做的法律义务外，了解情况的患者不太容易自动将损伤归咎于医疗失误。最后，并发症和索赔数量众多，这使得关于无过错赔偿制度是否应优于现行基于医疗过失的赔偿制度的进一步辩论变得合理。
