[Reciprocal influence of jurisprudence and medicine in Switzerland, exemplified by ophthalmology].

Through judgements, the legal system influences medicine and insurance matters strongly, sometimes in a positive way, but sometimes by judgements, which seem to be wrong to the medical expert. Certain institutions lead to the effect that cases are being prevented from judgement by the court and by enactment. This has advantages and disadvantages. Two examples of judgements, having enacted new law are described: 1. The "Cataract Judgement" of the (Swiss) Federal Court of Insurances. This is a prime example of how to come to a correct conclusion without specific medical expertise, namely, that surgery of cataract is a measure for reintegration of the patient (in the sense of the Swiss Law of Invalidity). 2. The judgement of the (Swiss) Federal Court of Insurances, which states that glasses are an aid (in the sense of the Swiss Law of Invalidity), is a model to demonstrate the outcome, if the knowledge of experts is not requested. These facts call for better collaboration between law and medicine. Prevention of legal judgements, which would set precedents, enact new laws, is a disadvantage in points of dispute between patients and medical doctors which are settled outside the court with the guidance of expert opinions of the Swiss Federation of Medical doctors (FMH). The pioneering achievements of the Swiss Academy of Medical Sciences in stating ethical guidelines in delicate matters like organ transplantation, artificial insemination etc. is highly acknowledged, but has the disadvantage of delaying new laws. The Swiss medical doctor had to pass examinations regulated by federal law. There are no examinations after training in specialties, such as ophthalmology.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)