88 The Legal Responsibility of Nurses in the Light of the Turkish Court of Cassation Jurisprudence without authority, is considered lighter as per the law (article 527/1 of TBK). The nurse’s liability arising from private law, especially for tortious act or breach of contract, ensures that the patient’s damage is compensated with material and/or moral compensation.42 In emergency situations, the treatment of the patient without obtaining his/her permission may be subject to the provisions of agency working without authority. Like that, tort (wrongful act) and/or violating the rules of good faith during pre-contract negotiations are within the scope of breach of debt from the culpa in contrahendo point of view. It is in this manner that the patient’s condition who linger by creating the expectation that he will be treated, worsens.43 Finally, the possibility of wrongful behaviour and acting without authority can be exemplified in covenant negotiations. It is sufficient for the nurse to use her/his medical knowledge in the best way and to choose the most appropriate method for treatment. Otherwise, a nurse does not guarantee a curative result such as healing. It is known that a nurse can provide health services independently of the physician. It is important for a nurse to be honest while the covenant negotiations are going on to undertake the care and supervision of the patient. For this reason, vain promises such as rapid recovery or life extension should not be voiced. The legal order does not protect medical knowledge and nursing status for being used as a hope-monger (article 502, 102 of TBK.; article 2 of TMK). In addition, a nurse, who is out of duty and gives medical treatment to a lonely person who was injured and unconscious in a traffic accident can be considered to be acting without authority. Similarly, when a patient who is unconscious and is brought to the emergency room by third parties, the urgent medical intervention of the physician and the nurse can be thought as the agency with42 Kürşat, p. 303, fn. 9, 304, 307-317. Çetinkaya Uslusoy/Duran Taşçı/Korkmaz, p. 54. Karabakır, p. 155-20. Aksoy Gülaslan, p. 269, 270. Özkaya/Elbüken, p. 118-124. Duysak, p. 25. Akbaba/Davutoğlu, p. 611. Altun/Yorulmaz, p. 7, 8, 10. Yüksel Reyhan, p. 368-377. Hakeri, “Hemşirelerin Yasal Sorumlulukları-II”, ibidem, fn. 26. Ersoy Y., Tıbbî Hatanın Hukukî ve Cezaî Sonuçları, p. 183-187. Terzioğlu/ Şahan, p. 139, 140. Cengiz/Küçükay, p. 120-127. Kuğuluoğlu et al., p. 89. Alkanat, p. 177-180. Arıkan, p. 69-89. Demircioğlu, p. 43 ed seq. Güvenç, p. 364-370. Akyol, p. 53, 54. Görener, p. 67-80. Erçoşkun Şenol, p. 38-50. Zevkliler/Gökyayla, p. 678680. Eren, Özel Hükümler, 909 ed seq. Eren, p. 40. Kılıçoğlu, p. 57, Erdoğmuş, p. 125-128. Yüksel Reyhani, Vekâletsiz İş Görme, p. 794-802. Güneş Kılıç, p. 67-99. 43 Yüksel Reyhani, Vekâletsiz İş Görme, p. 794, 802.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTQ3OTE1