1. Berufspflichtverletzung durch fachlich-kritische Äußerungen?
- Subjects
- *
COWORKER relationships , *PATIENTS' rights , *MEDICAL ethics , *FREEDOM of expression , *EMPLOYEE misconduct - Abstract
The article discusses the question of whether professionally critical statements can lead to a violation of professional duties. It is pointed out that certain pharmacies must be closed on certain days and therefore are unable to dispense medication. This could lead to a violation of the duty to be available for service. It is also mentioned that similar regulations exist in other federal states and that the Higher Regional Court of Cologne has allowed the appeal to clarify this question at the highest court level. The text deals with the rules of the professional code for dentists and their application. According to the professional code, dentists must practice their profession conscientiously and in accordance with the principles of medical ethics. They must show collegial behavior and must not make unfounded statements about colleagues. Expert opinions must be neutral and carefully prepared. The clauses of dental professional law can provide a sufficient basis for professional disciplinary sanctions. It is stated that the statements of the dentist are protected as expressions of opinion and do not constitute professional misconduct. The text deals with the fundamental right to freedom of expression and its limits. It is pointed out that freedom of expression exists independently of its justification or usefulness. The fundamental right to freedom of expression finds its limit in general laws, including professional regulations. When interpreting and applying these restrictive provisions, a balance must be struck between the importance of freedom of expression and the legal interest that is to be protected. It is emphasized that the correct interpretation of a statement is essential for its legal assessment. The text provides concrete examples of statements by an expert in relation to the medical treatment of patients. The present passage contains various statements and evaluations regarding treatment plans and expert opinions in the field of dentistry. It is criticized that the treatment plans are incomprehensible and not supported by sufficient findings. The OBI Foundation is described as esoteric and profit-oriented. It also refers to the statements of the expert who recommended alternative therapies and criticized the destruction of the patient's teeth through an invasive procedure. It is emphasized that the statements were made in the context of the dispute about the matter and do not constitute defamation. The balance between the legal interests of freedom of expression and the protection of the patient's health is considered decisive. It is pointed out that the expert was acting on behalf of insurance companies and uncovered serious treatment errors. It also refers to the patient's right to information about alternative treatment options. The article deals with various aspects of medical treatment and the disclosure of treatment errors. It is emphasized that doctors are legally obliged to record all relevant measures and results in the patient's medical record. The disclosure of treatment errors serves to protect the patient and ensure quality in healthcare. It is also pointed out that experts who are commissioned to examine a treatment are also obliged to disclose errors. The freedom of expression of the experts outweighs in most cases and justifies the publication of critical evaluations. It is also noted that [Extracted from the article]
- Published
- 2024
- Full Text
- View/download PDF