| Autor: |
Marchetti D., Sgarbi I., Feola A., Marsella L. T., Caricato M., la Monaca G. |
| Přispěvatelé: |
Marchetti, D., Sgarbi, I., Feola, A., Marsella, L. T., Caricato, M., la Monaca, G. |
| Jazyk: |
italština |
| Rok vydání: |
2019 |
| Předmět: |
|
| Popis: |
Introduction: The authors explore Civil Court of Rome sentences about the breach of informed consent elaborated in 2012 and in 2016. Materials and Methods: Judgments were selected from the Medical Observatory database named O.R.Me. and were examined by setting out evaluation criteria. Results: There were 69 judgments in 2012 and 57 in 2016 concerning the issue of informed consent. When a ‘biological damage’ was present, eventually resulting by medical fault, the violation of the right to self-determination was refunded by customizing the ‘biological damage’ (74% of the sentences in 2012 and 70% of those in 2016) or by adding a "quid" (17% of the 2012 sentences and 15% in 2016) also in terms of a "greater damage" (10% of sentences of 2016). In cases where no biological damage was found, the compensation for the breach of the consent occurred equitatively (9% of cases in 2012 and 5% in 2016). Judges asked an expert opinion about the biological damage evaluation and/or about the extent of the information to be provided to the patient. Discussion: This study underlines the importance to increase awareness of the healthcare practitioner about the "therapeutic" meaning of the dialogue with the patient; it draws attention on the risk of identifying ‘a posteriori’ the information that should have been provided and supports the idea that in this area there may be a useful space for conciliatory procedures. |
| Databáze: |
OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|
