Doctor accountability

Rate this post

People who have been victims of violence often seek help from healthcare. The fact that they must be provided with easily accessible care and that there must be care procedures is set out in the Healthcare and Medical Care Act and in the regulations of the National Health and Welfare Council.


In recent years, increasing attention has been paid in Sweden to frequent violence and its serious health consequences. In 2014, the National Council of Health and Welfare issued regulations and general advice on violence in close relationships (SOSFS 2014: 4). It shows the responsibility of the caregiver. Thematic guide to healthcare accountability


Many women seek care for acute trauma or chronic ailments caused by violence. But if they are not asked direct questions, they may choose not to share their experiences. Therefore, everyone should be routinely asked questions about violence. A topic guide for asking questions about violence


The care an aggressive patient receives can determine whether or not he chooses to share his experiences. It can also affect her ability to deal with the abuse. Therefore, it is important for staff to act professionally and empathetically.
Thematic guide for treatment and treatment


Healthcare is often the body that urgently needs the person who has been sexually abused. Staff must be able to provide care and attention to the patient. Healthcare also serves as an important first link to the judiciary. Thematic Guide to Tracking for Sexual Abuse


Confidentiality is to protect the patient. All patients should be able to talk freely with the staff about their health and personal situation. At the same time, they should be sure that what is said rests with the person they are talking to. The entity, however, has the right to decide on confidentiality. If the patient so wishes, he or she may consent to the transmission of the information.

Why don’t doctors have to take responsibility for their actions?

The Medical Association has been working for many years to remove doctors’ personal responsibility for incorrect treatment. And it worked. Therefore, no one is responsible for the death of a 17-year-old girl after a series of mistakes made by doctors.

It is a 30-kilometer stretch, but the taxi driver is in a hurry and drives 60 kilometers per hour and gets stuck. The driving license is immediately withdrawn and he loses his livelihood. My wife and five children are waiting at home. The driver did not injure anyone, but he probably put others at risk when he was going too fast.

The girl’s relatives desperately wonder whether the fact that the poor treatment of doctors has cost the young girl’s life should have any consequences. Why are they allowed to keep their jobs? Why no one takes responsibility?

Unfortunately, this is completely in line with the Patient Safety Act, which was introduced on January 1, 2011. At that time, Sweden – as the only country in the world – abolished the individual liability of medical personnel for health injuries.

In the future, the emphasis will be on the organization, principles and working methods of healthcare. The care takes place largely without personal responsibility. At the same time, the HSAN, the Committee on Responsibility for Health and Medical Care, was abolished in the part that dealt with disciplinary liability. Former chief executive officer of HSAN Aud Sjökvist wrote prior to the introduction of the Patient Safety Act that the law was out of step with the patient’s perspective and that it was extremely important to legally demand liability from the individual.

Doctor accountabilityThe new system that has been created is the sham system that is most favorable to medical interests. IVO can criticize hospitals and even doctors, but it doesn’t matter. Criticism that can be passed on does not give any individual patient or relative any redress, but it is a system where patients and relatives can write or talk about themselves through contact with IVO and patient committees.

In the debate preceding the implementation of the Patient Safety Act, the former minister of social affairs said that we would still have a sanctioning system for ill-treatment. He then mentioned the revocation of the identification and the suspension.

Six of the 44,000 medical IDs are 0.01 percent. Six doctors were given a trial period due to incompetence / unsuitability. This system is not legally safe to ensure patient safety. How is it possible that a system has been introduced that has so clearly deviated from the patient’s perspective?