NEWSLETTER-2019-metin

221 LAW OF OBLIGATIONS health, including research, must be carried out in accordance with the relevant professional obligations and standards.” Established Court of Cassation jurisprudence states that “The medical standard refers to the level of the doctor’s experience that has been tried and proven, and the natural sciences attained by the doctor in order to achieve the aim of the treatment 3 .” Therefore, a doctor’s duty of care shall be examined within the scope of the established medical standards. Since determin- ing the defect within this scope requires superior medical knowledge, this may only be determined through a technical report prepared by competent experts or by the Forensic Medicine Institution. Doctor’s Duty of Disclosure As per Art(s). 15, 24 and 26 of the Regulation on Rights of Pa- tients 4 and Art. 26 of the Rules of Professional Ethics of the Turkish Medical Association, doctors are obliged to explain, in detail, all of the interventions that they will perform, possible complications which may arise, the results of the interventions, and to obtain the patient’s clear consent (informed consent) regarding the interventions (i.e. op- erations). The Court of Cassation has ruled that since no informed consent was provided that shows that the patient was informed regarding the possible complications arising from the operation, nor that the patient gave consent for the interventions, the interventions performed were unlawful, and the doctor is liable to compensate for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages 5 . Limitation of Action The limitations in actions for damages arising from the breach of doctors’ obligations vary according to the nature of the legal relation- ship. Since the provisions of contracts for work shall be applied for aesthetic-proposed interventions, of which the result is guaranteed, Art. 478 of the TCO would be valid in determining the limitations. As Rights and Biomedicine, OG, No. 25311, 09.12.2003. 3 15th CC of the Court of Cassation, No. 2018/5523 E. 2019/801 K., 26.2.2019. 4 OG, No. 23420. 01.08.1998. 5 13th CC of the Court of Cassation, E. 2016/25663, K. 2018/7615, 04.07.2018.