compensation 20; 15/10/18; medical, penal, industry, sanofi

blog: madic50.blogspot.com / Book: The two forms, ed. Amazon

Paris, Monday, October 15, 2018

REFLECTION NO. 20 ON THE MECHANISMS OF THE CONFUSION ORGANIZED BY THE PROCEDURE BETWEEN POSSIBLE CRIMINAL MISCONDUCT AND EXCESSIVE CONSEQUENCES OF INDEMNIFICATION. (see madic50)

This year, two more people left tetraplegic surgery otherwise benign at least routine.

They will have to wait at least ten years before the compensation file is closed.

The judges indicate by the evolution of the jurisprudence that the error, the fault, the crime, medical, are less and less subtracted under the law.

Similarly, the patients admit less and less the twists which are thus carried to them.

The 2010 report of the Observatory of Medical Risks indicates that the state is fully informed about the compensation issues of sores caused by medicine to patients.

What interests me here is to notice that part of the solution to this "nagging question", according to the media, emerges from an evolution of the law.

Even if they have been updated, the formulations of the entitlement law are based on a 19th century logic.

As on other subjects, this logic leads all reforms and adaptations of the right to hypertrophy existing solutions instead of promoting new ones.

1- It postpones the claims for compensation on an increase in the contributions of "the liability insurance of doctors".

a- By multiplying a process adapted to circumscribed cases, these insurance predations become excessive.

b- They unbalance the insurance and dissuade the exercise of these specialties.

2- At the same time, the confusion of the penal and compensatory paths disempowers the medical professions by allowing them not to constrain themselves to reflect on the secular and quasi-sovereign individualisation of their acts.

Two questions must be answered:

1- The distinction between compensation and the examination of the criminal offense.

2- The distinction between compensation and spoliation; that it is that of the Public Treasury, corporate treasuries, insurance funds.

The current legal logic can not answer either one of these questions.

This shift in logic and legal qualifications is affecting other sectors.

Thus, the current logic of compensation is part of the stalemate of public debate about the company Sanofi; what the parliamentary clashes testify.

A reorganization of the principles of this one would allow the justice to approach the industrial questions outside the compensating conflicts and to drive them without predation of cash of the company.

It is true that justice would probably develop the capabilities of the criminal since it would no longer be confused with compensation.

This perspective may not be appropriate for the executives concerned; here, those of medicine and industry.

These are perhaps more favorable to the chaos provoked by an obsolete logic than to the order installed by an adequate logic.

All these questions deserve to be examined serenely by the representatives of the Nation instead of provoking sheaves of insults in public sessions.

Marc SALOMONE