117 Union of Turkish Bar Associations Review 2022 Hacı KARA I. PHYSICIAN’S MANDATORY FINANCIAL LIABILITY INSURANCE A. LEGAL REGULATION In order to guarantee the responsibilities of all physicians, dentists and specialists in accordance with the legislation on specialization in medicine, against the damages resulting from malpractice, in accordance with the Annex 12 of the Law No. 1219 on the Practice of Medicine and Medical Arts (LAMMS)9, “ Compulsory Liability Insurance for Medical Malpractice” has been regulated.10 Accordingly, physicians, dentists and specialists working in public and private health institutions and organizations or practicing their professions independently are obliged to take out professional liability insurance to cover the damages they may cause to individuals due to medical malpractice and the recourses to be made to them for this reason. The liability insurance of people working in the public sector should also cover the recourses to be made to them by their institutions. Employees in private health institutions and organizations must be insured by their institutions. Half of the insurance premiums of the aforementioned persons working in public health institutions and organizations are paid by themselves, the other half is paid from the revolving fund in institutions with revolving funds, and from the budgets of institutions that do not have revolving funds. Half of the premiums of employees working in private health institutions and organizations are paid by their institutions and by the freelancers themselves.11 9 Additional article 12 has been added to the Law No. 1219 with the 8th article of the Law No. 5947 on the “Full-time Work of University and Health Personnel and Amendments to Some Laws” published on 30.01.2010 D. and 27478 No. OG. 10 “Medical compulsory liability insurance”, “physician liability insurance”, “physician professional liability insurance”, “compulsory physician professional liability insurance”, “Mandatory Physician Liability Insurance” and similar names are used to express insurance in the doctrine and in the practice of the Supreme Court. 11 “It is misleading to present compulsory insurance against medical malpractice as a guarantee of patients’ rightp. From the position of the co-provider, the doctor’s fault was brought forward, as if he were the sole administrator of the right to health. Howeandr, in the world, it is important to moand from the domineering doctor type who does not want to take risks, to the participatory doctor type who cooperates with the patient. Making an insurance that reduces the pressure on the doctor and insures the patient directly is on the agenda of the world.” Tennur Koyuncuoğlu, “Doctor Insurance or Patient Insurance?”, TBB Journal, Y. 2011,
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTQ3OTE1