Written by - Barkha Tandon (Intern)
Introduction
In the realm of tort law, negligence stands out as a crucial area safeguarding diverse aspects of human life. Medical negligence being one of them which primarily focuses on healthcare provision.
In simple words medical negligence can be defined as an omission or an act done negligently by a doctor during patient interaction which cause injuries to the patient or results in death of the patient.
There are many cases where a doctor may be considered guilty of negligent acts. This includes not following standard procedures, giving incorrect advice, prescribing the wrong medication etc. Each of these situations highlights potential lapses in medical care and highlights the gravity of maintaining exacting standards in healthcare practices.
With advancement in time and increased awareness among people about their rights and privileges, The number of cases filed against doctors and hospitals by Patients who have suffered injuries due to medical negligence is on the rise.
Ineffectiveness Of Legal Proceedings
The yearly number of medical negligence cases and the frequency of such situations has notably surged in recent years. Addressing conflicts in healthcare settings proves challenging for all parties involved.
For the doctors, Engaging in legal battles disrupts the smooth functioning of their medical practice, Doctors undergoing litigation processes end up being ostracized from society, which may affect their self-assessment and confidence, causing them to make mistakes in the future.[1]
Also, for the patients, Medical malpractice litigation has proven to be an inadequate means of compensating patients for injuries caused by physician negligence. This is primarily due to its limited ability to identify negligent healthcare providers and its infrequent imposition of accountability upon them.
Medical negligence is a fact of life just like other forms of negligence. Physicians will continue to make mistakes in the care and treatment of patients. In reality, the work that physicians do is high-risk work. It can and does injure patients. Some mistakes will meet the legal definition of medical negligence. Some physicians will often be negligent. Litigation is also a fact of modern life. Some patients will want to sue when they are disappointed, injured or grief stricken at an unexpected result, whether or not it was caused by negligence. But litigation has not worked well to compensate injured patients or to curtail negligence.[2]
Despite concerns about compromising the patient's best interests, there is often a shared space for the parties to collaboratively explore resolutions that satisfy everyone involved. This is where mediation can be instrumental.
Mediation is a collaborative process which involves a third neutral party who guides a conversation between conflicting parties, enabling an amicable environment for reaching a compromise. This method aims to find the most acceptable solution to the issue without causing harm to the relationship between the disputing parties. The significant advantage of mediation is that it makes resolutions more acceptable, emphasizing cooperation and communication as key elements.
Benefits Of Mediating Medical Negligence Disputes
Because of its non-binding nature, mediation can effectively combine the best of both litigation and arbitration, mediating medical malpractice disputes has the following advantages:
Confidentiality:
Medical malpractice cases are embarrassing and a whole lot of persons do not want the public to be aware of their health problems and also medical practitioners require trust from patients, when issues of previous mistakes get public, they easily loose the trust of prospective clients and are at a risk of losing their jobs. It is because of this that a process like mediation would be encouraged for settling medical malpractice disputes because it keeps safe the secrets of the parties involved.
Disputes settlement by experts:
The mediator to be appointed by the parties would be someone who has knowledge of the subject matter of the dispute particularly medical negligence.[3]
Preservation of Relationships:
It plays a crucial role in preserving relationships in medical malpractice disputes. Unlike adversarial litigation, it enables free and open communication, collaboration, and a deeper understanding between doctors and patients. Customized solutions adapted to each relationship's peculiar dynamics ensure a positive and cooperative long-term connection between the parties involved.
Empowerment and Control:
Mediation allows both the parties to actively participate in the resolution process. Unlike court proceedings, parties to the dispute participate in discussions, freely express their concerns, and work collaboratively to find solutions under a mediator .It allows them to have greater sense of control over the outcome, fostering a sense of ownership and ensuring a more satisfying resolution experience compared to traditional litigation.
Cost-Effectiveness:
Mediation is more cost-effective than prolonged litigation. It is quicker, involving less time and fewer formalities, which leads to reduced legal fees and associated expenses for healthcare providers, patients, and insurers.
Efficiency and Timeliness:
Mediation can lead to faster resolution as it is designed to streamline the process, allowing parties to address and resolve issues promptly. It is quicker compared to lengthy court proceedings. This efficiency is crucial in the context of medical malpractice disputes, allowing parties to address and resolve issues in a timely manner, saving both time and resources for all parties involved.
Flexibility:
in mediation, Flexibility means that the process can be tailored to fit the specific needs of the parties involved. Unlike rigid court procedures, mediation allows for customized discussions and solutions. It offers the liberty to modify the communication methods or treatment plans, providing a more specific, creative, and compliant approach to dispute resolution.
Emphasis on Communication:
Effective and free communication is the key foundation of mediation. The process encourages the parties to dispute to express their concerns and issues, frankly, understand each other's perspectives, and work together towards a mutually acceptable resolution. This emphasis on communication can contribute to long-term understanding and collaboration.
Reduced Emotional Stress:
Unlike traditional litigation, which is usually emotionally taxing, mediation provides a more supportive, collaborative, and amicable environment. The informal setting and emphasis on free and open communication may help mitigate the stress and emotional strain often associated with medical malpractice disputes. This reduction in emotional stress allows for a more constructive approach to finding resolutions and promotes a more positive problem-solving experience for all parties involved.
Mutually Acceptable Solutions:
It focuses on finding mutually acceptable solutions, unlike the traditional litigation, where decisions are imposed on the parties. In mediation, the emphasis is on collaborative agreement rather than a win-lose approach.
Conclusion
Hence, mediation stands out as a more efficient as well as effective alternative to traditional litigation in resolving disputes, particularly in the sensitive matters of medical negligence cases. It helps to overcome the issues faced by both the parties during legal trials. Since, mediation process emphasizes open and free communication, collaborative problem-solving by finding mutually acceptable solutions, it accords to a successful preservation of relationships, reduced emotional stress, and cost-effectiveness etc. Furthermore, its mouldability and ability to maintain conversations confidentiality make it a cherished tool for safeguarding reputations. Overall, the unique and distinctive strengths of mediation make it an advantageous as well as a favorable approach for addressing the intricacies of medical negligence disputes while preserving the welfare and protection of those involved.
[1] Udisha Mishra, "Mediation in the Healthcare Sector" Via Mediation Centre, available at https://viamediationcentre.org (accessed 17 January 2024).
[2] Sheila M. Johnson, "A Medical Malpractice Litigator Proposes Mediation" (1997) 52 Disp. Resol. J. 42. (accessed 17 January 2024).
[3]Temitayo Bello, "Mediation as a Panacea for Medical Malpractice; A Mutually Beneficial Option?" (17 June 2019), available at SSRN: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3405464. . (accessed 17 January 2024).
Comentários