Sommer S A, Geissler R, Stampfl U, Wolf M B, Radeleff B A, Richter G M, Kauczor H-U, Pereira P L, Sommer C M
Kapp & Geissler Lawyers, Stuttgart, Germany.
Clinic for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Heidelberg, Germany.
Rofo. 2016 Apr;188(4):353-8. doi: 10.1055/s-0041-108198. Epub 2015 Dec 30.
On February 26th, 2013 the patient law became effective in Germany. Goal of the lawmakers was a most authoritative case law for liability of malpractice and to improve enforcement of the rights of the patients. The following article contains several examples detailing legal situation. By no means should these discourage those persons who treat patients. Rather should they be sensitized to to various aspects of this increasingly important field of law. To identify relevant sources according to judicial standard research was conducted including first- and second selection. Goal was the identification of jurisdiction, literature and other various analyses that all deal with liability of malpractice and patient law within the field of Interventional Radiology--with particular focus on transarterial chemoembolization of the liver and related procedures. In summary, 89 different sources were included and analyzed. The individual who treats a patient is liable for an error in treatment if it causes injury to life, the body or the patient's health. Independent of the error in treatment the individual providing medical care is liable for mistakes made in the context of obtaining informed consent. Prerequisite is the presence of an error made when obtaining informed consent and its causality for the patient's consent for the treatment. Without an effective consent the treatment is considered illegal whether it was free of treatment error or not. The new patient law does not cause material change of the German liablity of malpractice law.
•On February 26th, 2013 the new patient law came into effect. Materially, there was no fundamental remodeling of the German liability for medical malpractice. •Regarding a physician's liability for medical malpractice two different elements of an offence come into consideration: for one the liability for malpractice and, in turn, liability for errors made during medical consultation in the process of obtaining informed consent. •Forensic practice shows that patients frequently enforce both offences concurrently.
2013年2月26日，患者法在德国生效。立法者的目标是制定关于医疗事故责任的最具权威性的判例法，并加强患者权利的执行。以下文章包含几个详细说明法律情况的例子。这些绝不应使治疗患者的人感到气馁。相反，他们应该对这个日益重要的法律领域的各个方面保持敏感。为了根据司法标准确定相关来源，进行了包括初次筛选和二次筛选的研究。目标是确定在介入放射学领域内涉及医疗事故责任和患者法的司法管辖权、文献及其他各种分析——特别关注肝脏的经动脉化疗栓塞及相关程序。总之，共纳入并分析了89个不同来源。治疗患者的个人若因治疗失误导致患者生命、身体或健康受到伤害，则应对此治疗失误负责。提供医疗护理的个人独立于治疗失误，应对在获得知情同意过程中所犯的错误负责。前提是在获得知情同意时存在失误，且该失误与患者同意治疗存在因果关系。没有有效的同意，无论治疗是否没有失误，该治疗都被视为非法。新的患者法并未导致德国医疗事故责任法发生实质性变化。
•2013年2月26日，新的患者法生效。实质上，德国医疗事故责任并无根本性重塑。
•关于医生的医疗事故责任，有两种不同的犯罪要素需要考虑：一是医疗事故责任，二是在获得知情同意过程中的医疗咨询失误责任。
•法医实践表明，患者经常同时追究这两种责任。
