We know that the concept of health cannot be replaced by any other concept in our lives. So, do you know who can be held responsible, how, and under what conditions when such an important concept is violated, both individually and socially?

Everyone has the right to live in a healthy and balanced environment. Health is of special importance in maintaining human life and preserving the quality of life. Due to the importance of health, it must be under the control and supervision of the State, considering its impact on human life and social life. The state is responsible for ensuring that everyone continues their life with physical and mental health. The state should ensure that public health services are provided continuously, uninterruptedly, and based on the principle of equality.

The state ensures its visibility and the provision of qualified services through administrative bodies. In cases where damage occurs during the provision of healthcare services, the responsibility of the administration may be invoked.

One of the responsibilities of the administration is fault-based liability, which comes into play when the administration fails to fulfill or inadequately fulfills its obligation to provide healthcare services. In order to invoke fault-based liability, there must be an act or procedure of the administration, and damage must occur as a result of this act or procedure. Furthermore, this act or procedure must involve a fault that can be attributed to the administration or public officials. For example, if a patient contracts an infection during surgery or is given incorrect treatment, the administration’s fault-based liability will come into play.

Although the primary responsibility of the administration is fault-based liability, there are also cases where the administration can be held responsible even if neither the administration nor the public official has any fault in the events. For example, in cases involving mandatory vaccination, infectious and dangerous diseases like AIDS and Hepatitis C, or blood transfusions, the administration can be held responsible even if there is no fault on its part.

However, there are certain situations that may relieve the administration from responsibility. In some cases, the damage may have been caused by factors other than the administration’s actions or procedures. Situations such as force majeure, unforeseen circumstances, or the actions of third parties or the injured party that cause the damage may partially or fully remove the administration’s responsibility. If one of these circumstances fully removes the administration’s responsibility, the administration will not be required to compensate for the damage. However, if the situation only partially removes the administration’s responsibility, the administration’s liability will continue in proportion to its fault. For example, if a person is attacked by a third party while receiving treatment at a hospital, and the hospital has failed to take preventive and deterrent security measures against such incidents, the person can hold both the person responsible for the attack and the administration liable for the damage.

In conclusion, the effective implementation of healthcare services is of great importance both socially and individually. As explained above, if the necessary conditions are met and to the extent that it is relevant, the administration’s responsibility may be invoked in case of failure to effectively carry out healthcare services, and if there is no factor that relieves the administration of responsibility, the administration may be obliged to compensate for the damage caused by the relevant action or procedure.

Av. Şefik ZİROĞLU & Stj. Av. Neslihan Öykü ŞAHİN