Many countries are facing problems that are the result of applying the classical system of compensation in health care. The number of damage claims in health care is increasing, which brings about the practice of defensive medicine and negatively affects the relationship between doctors or other health care professionals and patients. The classical system of compensation is unfavourable for the injured parties since it renders proving fault and causal relationship more difficult, while judicial proceedings are lengthy and litigation costs are generally high. Advocates of the no-fault compensation system also complain that the classical system of compensation is inequitable since, with the latter, the injured party is awarded damages only in case the doctor’s or another health care professional’s wrongful conduct is proven. Due to such issues, some countries have decided to introduce a no-fault compensation system in health care into their legal order, within which the existence of a fault element is not decisive. The master thesis presents this system in greater detail by comparing legal regulations in various countries that have adopted the no-fault compensation system in health care. The last part of the master thesis provides a description of the classical Slovenian system of compensation in health care and the problems that accompany it. This is followed by a discussion on the suitability of implementing a no-fault compensation system in health care into our legal order, which is based on the analysis of effectiveness of the no-fault compensation system in health care in overcoming the existing problems. The analysis brings us to the conclusion that the benefits of a general no-fault compensation scheme do not outweigh interfering with the existing compensation scheme in health care and that the shortcomings of the existing system of compensation can be overcome with other, less invasive measures.
|
