Rethinking the Concept of Damages in Cases of Medical Malpractice in the Light of Judicial Procedure UK Courts

Medicine is one of the oldest professions in human history and is of special importance due to its close connection with the death and life of human beings. To the extent that medicine has been considered by ancient civilizations and due to its sensitivity, laws and regulations have been enacted in this field. Since the doctor deals with the body and soul of people, despite his mastery of his treatments, he may not have the desired results and may even cause harm.

The method of conducting research is analytical-descriptive and this concept has been studied using the legal cases in the British jurisprudence.

In the English legal system, judicial procedure and court rulings are the most important source of a physicianchr('39')s commitment to treat and rescue patients; In the UK, if a doctor commits to a particular outcome, "the courts will look into the matter without regard to the commitment guaranteed by him." Has he done the desired and sufficient effort and skill that a normal person is a member of the same group and with the same amount of expertise or not? And the defendant (physician, etc.) if he cannot prove the usual care, is considered a violator of his care duty, which is in fact a kind of criterion that accuses the doctor of negligence.

In the United Kingdom, courts, in the interests of society, sometimes hold individuals responsible for damages resulting from their actions, regardless of whether they have committed a crime or not. To realize the concept of damages in cases of medical malpractice in the UK, a number of elements are listed that include three basic and important elements: 1- medical error or the presence of a harmful act; 2- Injury to the patient, the patient must prove that the physician caused the damage by violating his legal or contractual duty (negligence); 3- The causal relationship between the breach of the covenant (harmful act) and the harm inflicted on the patient (ie there must be a customary causation between the harmful act of the physician and the harm inflicted on the patient.