147 Union of Turkish Bar Associations Review 2022 Hacı KARA the use of the given drugs and their possible side effects, the patients recommended illuminates the consequences of the disease, possible treatment options and risks if he does not accept the treatment. The clarification to be made should be in accordance with the cultural, social, and mental state of the patient. The information should be given in a way that can be understood by the patient. The patient himself determines who will be informed outside the patient. Any attempt can be made with the person’s free and informed consent. The consent is invalid if it has been obtained through coercion, threat, incomplete illumination, or deception. In emergencies, in cases where the patient is underage or unconscious, or unable to make a decision, the permission of his legal representative is to explain how the clarification will be done with the regulation. In informed consent, the burden of proof is on the physician or the hospital. If we look at the concrete case in the light of the explanations explained above; it is understood that the plaintiff was exposed to a series of treatments and interventions after the operation in the defendant’s hospital. It is against the procedure and the law that the court ignored these aspects and made a written judgment with the incomplete examination, and it was unanimously decided to overturn the decision for the benefit of the plaintiff.69 In the decision numbered 13. HD, 11.04.2013, T. 2013/2273 E. and 2013/9491 K., “...If it is concluded that there is no medical error but a complication, it is decided that the defendants should be considered responsible, considering that the burden of proof is on the defendants in the informed consent, and a decision should be made in accordance with the result to be achieved.” Despite these and similar decisions, more and more lawsuits may be filed if physicians show a lack of information.70 5. Coverage of Insurance In the case subject to the decision of Y 11. HD, 08.07.2019 T., 2019/2062 E., and 2019/5048 K., the Dispute Arbitrator in the decision of 17.02.2018 T. and 2018/İHK-11136 given by the Insurance Arbitration Commission Appeal Arbitration Committee By the delegation71; it 69 www.kazanci.com.tr, (Date of Access: 25.08.2019). 70 Yördem, p. 544. 71 Rıza/Çaglar/Özdamar, p. 116 et al.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTQ3OTE1