TFL Vsebine / Revija Pravnik

11

Zdravilci v skladu z Zakonom o zdravilstvu odgovarjajo po splošnih pravilih o odškodninski odgovornosti. Slovenska sodišča dopuščajo, da oškodovanci uveljavljajo odškodnino tako na podlagi pogodbenega temelja kot tudi na podlagi civilnega delikta. Protipravnost se lahko izrazi v obliki napak pri pojasnilni dolžnosti ali izostanka pojasnilne dolžnosti, v obliki zdravilske napake ali v nespoštovanju določbe o napotitvi na medicinsko zdravljenje. Pri razjasnitvi nekaterih vprašanj o odškodninski odgovornosti zdravilcev se lahko opremo na ugotovitve teorije in prakse glede odškodninske odgovornosti zdravnikov. Vendar pa je treba ob tem nujno upoštevati, da je ureditev pojasnilne dolžnosti zdravilcev v nekaterih vidikih drugačna od ureditve pri zdravnikih. Predvsem so drugačni pogoji za privolitev nesposobnih oseb, obligatornost pisne oblike, obseg pojasnilne dolžnosti in pravilo o tem, kdo mora opraviti pojasnilno dolžnost. Ureditev odškodninske odgovornosti zdravilcev je po preučitvi načeloma ustrezna, vendar zaradi pomanjkljivosti splošne ureditve položaja zdravilcev ne more biti uspešno izvajana.

In accordance with Slovenian Complementary and Alternative Medicine Act (Zakon o zdravilstvu) healers are not liable under the general rules of compensation liability. Slovenian courts allow the victims to claim compensation on the contractual basis or on the basis of a civil offense. Illegality can be expressed in the form of absence or defects in informed consent, in the form of healing defect, or in disrespecting the provision of referral for medical treatment. In clarifying certain issues regarding compensation liability of healers, we can lean on conclusions from theory and the case law considering compensation liability of medical doctors. However, it is essential to take into account that the regulation of the informed consent of healers in some aspects differs from the regulation concerning medical doctors. In particular, there are different conditions with respect to the consent of incompetent persons, obligation of a written form, the scope of informed consent, and the rule defining who shall give informed consent. The regulation of the tort liability of healers is appropriate in principle; however, the imperfections in the general regulation of healers’ position prevents it from being successfully implemented.

Tort Liability of Healers