Doctors' direct liability for harm to patients emerges, white coats rise up
The public or private healthcare facility is only liable in cases where it has not ensured adequate organisation or the necessary devices and equipment for doctors
Key points
Passing on civil liability in the event of harm to patients directly to the doctor, rather than primarily to the healthcare facility. This is the aim of an amendment to the manoeuvre signed by Micaela Biancofiore, which is one of those highlighted, and which immediately sparked controversy and protest from the medical world. This would "set us back light years", says the president of the National Federation of Doctors' Orders (Fnomceo) Filippo Anelli, while for the trade unions it is a "shameful frontal attack on the category". Biancofiore defends himself: "My amendment is in favour of doctors and citizens" and invites the unions of the white coats to "also try to interpret the exasperation of those citizens who have, alas, been victims of clamorous errors caused by clueless doctors".
What the reported amendment to the manoeuvre envisages
The amendment in question provides that "the health professional who, in the exercise of the activity carried out within a public or private health or social care structure, causes damage to a patient, shall be liable in the main for his actions by way of contractual liability". The health or socio-health facility, whether public or private, is only liable in cases where it 'has not ensured an adequate organisation of the health and care service' or 'has not provided health personnel with devices and equipment suitable for carrying out their activities' or does not even possess health authorisations to carry out the activity. This amendment, is Anelli's request, 'must be withdrawn immediately, because it would take the matter back light years, wiping out all the legislation of the last ten with one swipe of the wrist, taking the hands back to before the Gelli-Bianco Law, which dates back to 2017'. In this way, he urges, "one wants to make the doctor the main target of claims, relieving the structures". The risk is 'a mass flight of doctors and health personnel to other countries'.
White chamen criticism and defence of the amendment
The medical trade unions Anaao Assomed and Federazione Cimo-Fesmed gave a clear verdict: "While on the one hand the government is promising the criminal shield to guarantee protection and allow doctors and health professionals to work with a minimum of serenity, on the other hand it is attempting to make a very serious coup, trying to demolish the structure of the Gelli-Bianco law. We are faced with a shameful amendment, which takes the country back to the era of doctor hunting'. 'Once again they want to hit doctors in order to absolve any organisational and managerial responsibilities of the companies,' says the Fp CGIL. Harsh criticism of the Biancofiore amendment also came from Noi Moderati, Avs, and Italia Viva. In an evening communiqué, Biancofiore clarifies his position - stressing that the amendment is 'in favour of both doctors and citizens' - and invites the trade unions to 'also try to interpret the exasperation of those citizens who have, alas, fallen victim to clamorous errors caused by clueless doctors'. 'Fortunately,' he says, 'a minimal part that should not affect the credibility and reliability of the vast majority. To those who, for example, had their healthy kidney removed or had one leg operated on instead of the other, or worse were operated on without there being any need, what do we answer? How do we justify the unions? The sensible answer - he concludes - should be for them 'the responsibility lies with the hospital where the tragic mistake happened?'"
