103 Union of Turkish Bar Associations Review 2022 TÜZÜNER / DUYMUŞ / ALGÜL In the Supreme Court verdicts reviewed between 1973 and 2020, post-injection neuropathy resulting from nurse’s malpractice is surprising in terms of its frequency. The problem of injection in the legal responsibility of nurses has reached disturbing dimensions as a societal phenomenon. Injection should be approached multidisciplinary so that radical solutions can be produced. In particular, while educating nurse candidates about injection, medical science and legal wisdom should work together. In nursing education, it is recommended that nurse candidates be subjected to stricter exams on injection and that they are both medically and legally enlightened about the negative consequences of this practice. Finally, the claim that the nurse administered the wrong injection, as a rule, is not a personal fault; but that is neglect of duty (service failure).95 As a rule, administrative jurisdiction is in charge in cases of malpractice caused by a civil servant nurse in state hospitals. The Court of Cassation has repeatedly stated this rule.96 The exception to the rule has been the subject of the provision clause and the dissenting votes. Indeed, attributing personal fault to a civil servant nurse in substantive law may reverse the conflict of competence from administrative into civil procedural law.97 95 Erkin Göçmen, “Yargıtay, Hemşirenin Hatalı Enjeksiyon Davası İçin Ne Karar Verdi?”, https://www.medikalakademi.com.tr/yargitay-hemsire-hatali-enjeksiyondava-karar-ceza-erkin-gocmen/ (Date of Access 21.6.2021). For the exact same short article, see also Taner Onay, “Yargıtay, Hemşirenin Hatalı Enjeksiyon Davası İçin Ne Karar Verdi?”, http://dijitalhemsire.net/yargitay-hemsirenin-hatalienjeksiyon-davasi-icin-ne-karar-verdi/ (Date of Access 21.6.2021). “Different approaches are seen in the case law of the Court of Cassation in cases of droopy foot injury after intramuscular injection applications”. In this short article, the distinction between criminal and private law is not clear. The identity of the said Supreme Court decision is not certain. Some statements violate the fundamental principles of the liability law. In addition, it gives rise to unexpected conclusions as if the Supreme Court no longer holds the nurse responsible for the intramuscular injection or its decisions are unstable. In fact, for the distinction between personal and service (duty) faults in the legal responsibility of the physician, see Çelik, p. 879-883, 901 ed seq. Hakeri, Vol. 2, p. 979-992. 96 21st Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, 2003/10347, 2004/765, 9.2.2004. Court of Cassation, General Assembly of Civil Chambers, 2011/4-64, 2011/200, 20.4.2011. 4th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, 2015/9285, 2015/9678, 10.9.2015. 4th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, 2015/4017, 2015/4876, 16.4.2015. 4th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, 2014/7428, 2014/10382, 23.6.2014. 13th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, 2017/8615, 2020/4264, 12.6.2020. 97 4th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, 2004/11762, 2004/10881, 30.9.2004. 4th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, 2014/620, 2014/1593, 4.2.2014. 4th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, 2011/1694, 2012/4172, 15.3.2012.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTQ3OTE1