Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://www.um.edu.mt/library/oar/handle/123456789/9652
Full metadata record
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.date.accessioned | 2016-04-19T09:37:43Z | |
dc.date.available | 2016-04-19T09:37:43Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2015 | |
dc.identifier.uri | https://www.um.edu.mt/library/oar//handle/123456789/9652 | |
dc.description | LL.D. | en_GB |
dc.description.abstract | The doctor-patient relationship is a fiduciary bond that is created between the two parties as soon as there is contact. There is an ethical code of conduct which the medical practitioners have to abide with, whose essence is found in the Hippocratic Oath that is normally taken up by the practitioners when they start working within this profession. When this relationship is created, there has to be informed consent towards the treatment. This is a process whereby the patient is informed of the risks and also benefits of the treatment. Consent may be done away with in certain instances such as medical emergencies; it may be vitiated; or sometimes even overlooked. Medical errors often give rise to criminal investigations and charges against medical practitioners. The epitome of criminalising medical negligence lies with involuntary offences, which are those offences that emerge from a gross negligent act of the practitioner. This means that the doctor did not do what another professional would have done in that same situation. For there to be a possible conviction, there must exist a link of causality between the negligent act of the practitioner and the damage caused. Proving causality within a medical setting may prove to be difficult because of the number of factors that would be surrounding the case. A negligent act conducted by a doctor may not only harm the patient, but also a foetus and this may give rise to a charge of culpable miscarriage. The lack of definitions within involuntary offences gives rise to doubt, with the Courts having a great deal of discretion. Justice is being served, however it is time to have specific, more eloquent legislation that safeguards both the medical practitioner and the patient. | en_GB |
dc.language.iso | en | en_GB |
dc.rights | info:eu-repo/semantics/restrictedAccess | en_GB |
dc.subject | Medical care -- Law and legislation -- Malta | en_GB |
dc.subject | Patients -- Malta -- Legal status, laws, etc. | en_GB |
dc.subject | Physician and patient -- Malta | en_GB |
dc.subject | Physicians -- Malpractice -- Malta | en_GB |
dc.subject | Criminal liability -- Malta | en_GB |
dc.title | Criminal action against medical practitioners : a comparative analysis | en_GB |
dc.type | masterThesis | en_GB |
dc.rights.holder | The copyright of this work belongs to the author(s)/publisher. The rights of this work are as defined by the appropriate Copyright Legislation or as modified by any successive legislation. Users may access this work and can make use of the information contained in accordance with the Copyright Legislation provided that the author must be properly acknowledged. Further distribution or reproduction in any format is prohibited without the prior permission of the copyright holder. | en_GB |
dc.publisher.institution | University of Malta | en_GB |
dc.publisher.department | Faculty of Laws. Department of Criminal Law | en_GB |
dc.description.reviewed | N/A | en_GB |
dc.contributor.creator | Bezzina, Bethany | |
Appears in Collections: | Dissertations - FacLaw - 2015 Dissertations - FacLawCri - 2015 |
Files in This Item:
File | Description | Size | Format | |
---|---|---|---|---|
15LLD016.pdf Restricted Access | 5.08 MB | Adobe PDF | View/Open Request a copy |
Items in OAR@UM are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.