There are no extra-judiciary mechanisms for solving cases of malpractice in the Republic of Moldova. There is no mechanism of medical professional liability insurance in case of medical errors. There is also no authority that would determine the gravity of these errors. At the same time, the number of cases of malpractice increases annually. Such conclusions can be found in an assessment study carried out by the Moldova Institute for Human Rights (IDOM).
In a news conference at IPN, lawyer Ion Dodon said Moldova’s legislation does not stipulate the notion of malpractice even if particular aspects of this juridical category are regulated by the Penal Code, which criminalizes medical errors that affect the health of a patient or lead to his death, committed out of negligence by health professionals. But no criminal liability is envisioned for causing damage to the patient, when the damage is medium and light. There are also no efficient mechanisms of protection again malpractice, except for the courts of law.
IDOM director Vanu Jereghi said that during ten years since the Institute monitors cases of violation of human rights in the health system, they determined that such cases are ignored or their investigation lasts for years. “There are cases disseminated by the press, when the relatives cry in corridors and the doctors close the doors in front of them and say that it is not their blame. The number of such cases increased in time. When lawsuits are filed, we witness situations when we cannot obtain an alternative examination and it is very hard to combat what a doctor prescribed, especially because there is medical solidarity,” said the IDOM director. According to him, the doctors would admit that they made a mistake if they remained alone in front of the problem.
Radu Bobeica, jurist at IDOM, said the approach in dealing with this issue should be based on the non-admission of medical errors in the future and reduction of the negative impact on the patient’s state. The amicable mediation between the doctor and patient should be stipulated in legislation as a precondition before going to court. There should be introduced the practice of medical insurance for cases of malpractice.
According to Rodica Gramma, university lecturer and expert in medical law, the doctors admit that medical practice implies risks. These risks can be generated by the health system, the quality of equipment and the results of lab examinations or even the behavior of the patient. The doctors would like the practice of medical malpractice insurance to be introduced so that they have where to pay from when patients seek damages.
Arcadie Astrahan, expert in human rights and medical policies, gave the example of such states as Sweden, Finland and Australia, where a connection between the error and the set recompense is established. The Swedish model is the closest to the consumer because the court costs are reduced and formally the patients do not need qualified legal aid. There is a larger medical malpractice insurance market. In Germany, up to 18 cases of 100 reach the court, while the rest are solved by extra-judicial ways.
After all the recommendations formulated by experts, including foreign ones, are added together, the study will be submitted to the central authorities, including the Government.
