Diferencias teóricas y prácticas en materia de responsabilidad médica entre la Corte Suprema de Justicia y el Consejo de Estado
Objective: to determine whether medical responsibility, according to the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of Justice and the Council of State, can be formulated according to the dynamic burden of proof. Methodology: this is a study of legal hermeneutics that goes to jurisprudential and doctrinal d...
Gorde:
| Egile nagusia: | |
|---|---|
| Formatua: | Artikulua |
| Hizkuntza: | Gaztelania |
| Argitaratua: |
2016
|
| Gaiak: | |
| Sarrera elektronikoa: | https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/oaiart?codigo=6101310 |
| Baliabidea: | Ambiente Jurídico, ISSN 0123-9465, Nº. 20, 2016, pags. 45-70 |
| Etiketak: |
Etiketa erantsi
Etiketarik gabe: Izan zaitez lehena erregistro honi etiketa jartzen
|
| Laburpena: |
Objective: to determine whether medical responsibility,
according to the jurisprudence of the Supreme
Court of Justice and the Council of State, can be formulated
according to the dynamic burden of proof.
Methodology: this is a study of legal hermeneutics
that goes to jurisprudential and doctrinal documents
as its basis of analysis. Results: there are radical differences
between the Court and the Council that make
it difficult to resolve conflicts in the area of medical
liability, especially as regards the burden of proof. In
addition, we study the possibility of considering the
medical history as a source of evidence that can be
used by doctors. |
|---|