78 The Legal Responsibility of Nurses in the Light of the Turkish Court of Cassation Jurisprudence geries, that do not cause physical distress but cause mental distress are medical interventions.14 In the Patient Rights Regulation, medical intervention is a physical and spiritual attempt aimed at protecting health, diagnosing and treating the disease, and it is also carried out within the boundaries of medicine (article 4 of HHY). The Law on the Mode of Execution of Medicine and Medical Sciences refers to persons qualified to perform medical interventions. According to this law, not only medical doctors and dentists, but also midwives, circumcisers and nurses are authorized in this regard (article 1, 2, 3, additional article 13, 29, 30, 47, 58, 68 of TİDK). Persons authorized to perform medical interventions are listed in the law, and nurses are among them. Only physicians (medical doctors) have the authorization to plan and prescribe treatment.15 The legality of the medical intervention is independent of the physician or nurse’s goodwill and patient satisfaction. The legally expected conditions must be realized cumulatively. Particularly competent health personnel, compliance with the current level of medical science, attentive service and informed consent of the patient are required. Possible error during medical intervention may arise from the physician as well as from other staff members, especially nurses or health technicians. So, the opposite of legality in medical intervention is medical error, and the perpetrator of this is any or some person who is legally authorized to perform medical intervention.16 rinin Hukukî Sorumluluğu”, Erzincan Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 2011, 15/1-2, p. 182-183. Atak, p. 20. Kahraman, p. 481, 484, 488. Özdemir, Hekimin Hukukî Sorumluluğu, p. 45, 46, 48. Oğuzman/Seliçi/Oktay-Özdemir, p. 180-187. Yüksel Reyhan, p. 367. Dural/Öğüz, § 561, 599. 14 Gülel, p. 586. Atak, p. 20. Kahraman, p. 480, 481. Özdemir, Hekimin Hukukî Sorumluluğu, p. 46. Oğuzman/Seliçi/Oktay-Özdemir, p. 180. 15 Ulaş Can Değdaş, “Hatalı Tıbbî Uygulamadan (Malpraktis) Doğan Hukukî ve Cezaî Sorumluluk”, Anadolu Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 2018, 6/1, p. 43, 44. Filiz Yavuz İpekyüz, Türk Hukukunda Hekimlik Sözleşmesi, Yetkin, Ankara, 2006, p. 23. Mine Kaya, “Hekimin Hastayı Aydınlatma Yükümlülüğünden Kaynaklanan Tazminat Sorumluluğu”, Türkiye Barolar Birliği Dergisi, 2012, 100, p. 49. Füsun Terzioğlu/Fatma Uslu Şahan, “Hemşirelerin Tıbbî Müdahalede Karar Verme Yetkisi ve Konumu”, Sağlık ve Hemşirelik Yönetimi Dergisi, 2017, 3/4, p. 137. Bahu Güneş Kılıç, Hekimin Hukukî Sorumluluğu, Legal, İstanbul, 2016, p. 15, 16. Gülel, p. 590. Kahraman, p. 480, fn. 1. Gojayeva, p. 54. Özdemir, Diş Hekimlerinin Hukukî Sorumluluğu, p. 179-181. Özdemir, Diş Hekimlerinin Hukukî Sorumluluğu, p. 43. 16 Oğuz Polat, Tıbbî Uygulama Hataları, Seçkin, Ankara, 2005, p. 25. Ersoy Y., Tıbbî
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTQ3OTE1