MEDICAL MALPRACTICE AS A TORT IN THE U.S., AS A CRIME IN ITALY: FACTORS, CAUSES, PATHS AND OUTCOMES

A. D. Landro
{"title":"MEDICAL MALPRACTICE AS A TORT IN THE U.S., AS A CRIME IN ITALY: FACTORS, CAUSES, PATHS AND OUTCOMES","authors":"A. D. Landro","doi":"10.17561/TAHRJ.N12.2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The aim of the paper is, firstly, to try to understand the reasons for the different approaches to medical malpractice in two legal systems taken as models: the U.S., where professional negligence is almost exclusively subject of tort law; Italy, where criminal law instruments are instead widely used. The different extent of criminal responsibility for negligence and omission seems connectable to different political and cultural models: individualistic liberalism, on the one hand, solidarist statism and communitarianism, on the other hand; in juridical terms, to the ideal contrast between the reactive State and the active State; to the different approach to the relationship between subject and body, dominical-individual versus collectivist-social; with a tendential \"privatization\" of the health-good, in the US model, and a \"socialization\" of the good-health itself, in the Italian model. Secondly, the paper tries, in a comparative perspective, to evaluate these different approaches, in terms of access to justice, paths and outcomes of the two models. The article attempts to highlight the strengths and the weaknesses of the contingent-fee system in the U.S. tort arena, and of the criminal justice system as \"free legal aid\" in Italy: a balanced solution should also allow victims hindered by the costs and the length of civil actions the possibility of using these latter form of protection, avoiding that criminal justice is exploited for compensatory purposes. Indeed, tort law more easily can meet compensatory claims, due to the lower probative standard required, the preponderance of evidence, rather than the beyond any reasonable doubt standard, required in criminal law. Also in terms of outcomes, the main problems arising in the two systems need to be tackled: the problem of few persons compensated, allowing a greater number of injured parties to access to justice and obtain fair compensation; the problem of symbolic criminal convictions (observed in the Italian experience), avoiding the automatic use of suspended penalties and monetary penalties as substitute of penalties weighing on professional practice and freedom, since these automatic mechanisms limit the preventive effectiveness of the criminal sanction and run the risk of creating discrimination on a census basis.","PeriodicalId":164030,"journal":{"name":"The Age of Human Rights Journal","volume":"91 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-06-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Age of Human Rights Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17561/TAHRJ.N12.2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The aim of the paper is, firstly, to try to understand the reasons for the different approaches to medical malpractice in two legal systems taken as models: the U.S., where professional negligence is almost exclusively subject of tort law; Italy, where criminal law instruments are instead widely used. The different extent of criminal responsibility for negligence and omission seems connectable to different political and cultural models: individualistic liberalism, on the one hand, solidarist statism and communitarianism, on the other hand; in juridical terms, to the ideal contrast between the reactive State and the active State; to the different approach to the relationship between subject and body, dominical-individual versus collectivist-social; with a tendential "privatization" of the health-good, in the US model, and a "socialization" of the good-health itself, in the Italian model. Secondly, the paper tries, in a comparative perspective, to evaluate these different approaches, in terms of access to justice, paths and outcomes of the two models. The article attempts to highlight the strengths and the weaknesses of the contingent-fee system in the U.S. tort arena, and of the criminal justice system as "free legal aid" in Italy: a balanced solution should also allow victims hindered by the costs and the length of civil actions the possibility of using these latter form of protection, avoiding that criminal justice is exploited for compensatory purposes. Indeed, tort law more easily can meet compensatory claims, due to the lower probative standard required, the preponderance of evidence, rather than the beyond any reasonable doubt standard, required in criminal law. Also in terms of outcomes, the main problems arising in the two systems need to be tackled: the problem of few persons compensated, allowing a greater number of injured parties to access to justice and obtain fair compensation; the problem of symbolic criminal convictions (observed in the Italian experience), avoiding the automatic use of suspended penalties and monetary penalties as substitute of penalties weighing on professional practice and freedom, since these automatic mechanisms limit the preventive effectiveness of the criminal sanction and run the risk of creating discrimination on a census basis.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
医疗事故作为一种侵权行为在美国,作为一种犯罪在意大利:因素,原因,路径和结果
本文的目的是,首先,试图理解两个法系对医疗事故的不同处理方式的原因:在美国,职业过失几乎完全是侵权法的主题;在意大利,刑法文书被广泛使用。过失和不作为的刑事责任的不同程度似乎与不同的政治和文化模式有关:一方面是个人主义的自由主义,另一方面是团结主义的国家主义和社区主义;用司法术语来说,就是被动状态和主动状态之间的理想对比;论主体与身体关系的不同途径,主体-个体与集体-社会的关系;美国模式倾向于健康产品的“私有化”,意大利模式倾向于健康产品本身的“社会化”。其次,本文试图从比较的角度,对这两种模式的司法途径、路径和结果进行评价。本文试图突出美国侵权领域的或有费用制度的优缺点,以及意大利作为“免费法律援助”的刑事司法制度的优缺点:一个平衡的解决方案还应该允许受民事诉讼费用和时间限制的受害者有可能使用后一种形式的保护,避免刑事司法被用于赔偿目的。事实上,侵权法更容易满足赔偿要求,因为它要求较低的证明标准,即证据优势,而不是刑法要求的排除任何合理怀疑标准。同样在结果方面,两个制度中产生的主要问题需要解决:得到赔偿的人很少的问题,使更多的受害方能够诉诸司法并获得公平的赔偿;象征性刑事定罪的问题(在意大利的经验中观察到),避免自动使用暂停处罚和罚款代替对专业实践和自由造成影响的处罚,因为这些自动机制限制了刑事制裁的预防效力,并有可能在人口普查的基础上造成歧视。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Legal Protection of the Right to Freedom and Personal Integrity of the Citizens of Ukraine (Private and Public Aspect) In Search of Durable Solutions for Refugees in Indonesia: A State Security and Human Rights Protection Approach Bottling the Criminal Contempt Law – A Search for ‘Intention’ in ‘Scandalizing the Court’ Right to Repatriation of Abandoned Seafarers: A Study in Light of Maritime Labour Convention 2006, and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966 The Right to Universal Accessibility
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1