96 The Legal Responsibility of Nurses in the Light of the Turkish Court of Cassation Jurisprudence Another jurisprudence in 2019 is about State recourse to a nurse whose personal wrongful act has been proven. So much so that the compensation paid by the State Treasury was collected through recourse from the deliberate nurse who killed the patient with a potassium injection. Because the nurse caused the death of the patient by injecting potassium through the neck path without the knowledge of the medical doctor following the patient.69 In the case of injury to the sciatic nerve by injection in 2020, the fact that the incident took place in a state hospital paved the way for the rejection of the case in the judicial court. The reason is for that is, enmity may not be directed at the people who work in a public hospital and whose personal wrongful acts cannot be proven in the judicial court.70 In 2020, the Court of Cassation stated that the focus should be primarily on the medical benefit of the patient: “All the faults of the nurse and the hospital, even if they are slight, should be accepted as an element of responsibility…In cases that cause hesitation even at the minimum level, a nurse is obliged to carry out research to eliminate this hesitation and to take protective measures in the meantime. While choosing between various treatment methods, it is necessary to consider the characteristics of the patient and the disease, to avoid attitudes and behaviours that will put the patient at risk, and to choose the safest way”.71 In 2020, the case of forgetting gauze on the patient’s body was submitted to the Court of Cassation. Although the defendants, including a nurse, were deemed to be at wrongful act by forgetting the gauze on the patient’s body during the operation, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of first instance on the grounds that it did not consider equity while determining the amount of non-pecuniary damage. That is, the local court should decide on reasonable compensation by taking into account the social and economic conditions of the parties, the degree of pain and suffering caused by the wrongful act at the victim, the place of the plaintiff in the society, his personality and his degree of sensitivity”.72 13th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, 2016/13768, 2019/6769, 29.5.2019. 69 4th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, 2018/3874, 2019/3615, 26.6.2019. 70 4th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, 2020/3974, 2020/8071, 26.6.2020. 71 13th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, 2016/31093, 2020/2079, 12.2.2020. 72 3rd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, 2020/3289, 2020/5633, 8.10.2020.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTQ3OTE1