Abstract:
In addressing the basis, the question is about 'why'. Why is disciplinary responsibility created for a physician? However, in examining the purpose, the intent is to know 'for what purpose' a physician faces disciplinary responsibility? The answer to these two questions becomes clear, especially in comparison with the basis and purpose of criminal and civil liability. But the fundamental question is how can disciplinary responsibility be based on ethical rules amidst the two aforementioned systems of liability? Undoubtedly, this system is neither subject to the fundamental principle of legality of crime and punishment that governs criminal liability, nor can it be entirely independent of it as is the case in civil liability! On the other hand, just as one can be concerned with the implementation of professional regulations and rules of professional ethics, one can and must also nurture concerns regarding the observance of the fundamental and inherent rights of individuals. Disciplinary investigation or the imposition of disciplinary responsibility and the determination of its penalties, in any case, leads to the condemnation and deprivation of a human being from a position and a right. It is not subject to the principle of legality of crime and punishment, but in determining its foundations, one should not be reckless! Law, in regulating social relations, seeks order and justice, and its foundation is based on precision and meticulousness in referring branches to principles and foundations.
Machine summary:
In our opinion, we must adhere to ethical rules and extend its adjudication to the field of disciplinary responsibility, and especially base it on the concepts of "contrary to professional affairs" and "the sanctity and status of the medical community," but follow legal principles in the manner of applying these principles, defining violations, and imposing punishments.
For this reason, in the physician-patient relationship within the medical domain, we can speak of the three-fold rights of individuals and expect appropriate enforcement mechanisms for their violation: the individual right of the patient (the right to life and the right to bodily integrity), the violation of which leads to individual damage and the establishment of civil liability; the right of society, the violation of which leads to damage to social order, societal security, and results in criminal liability; and ultimately, in this context, a society composed of individuals who engage in a specific occupation and profession and have common professional and vocational interests, which we refer to as professional and vocational rights.
What is certain is that although the violation of ethical rules (especially in the field of professional ethics) cannot in itself cause the physician to be held responsible, the definition of a crime and punishment in the law is carried out considering the reprehensible and undesirable nature of that act in society, and in any case, it is subject to moral judgments, but it is not limited to them.
» As can be observed, for a disciplinary violation to occur, according to the appearance of this article, there is no necessity for a violation of law or professional regulations to have occurred; it is sufficient for the adjudicating authority (without stating any criteria or rules) to determine that the physician's behavior was contrary to professional affairs and has harmed the status of the medical community.
(
, 
, 
)
