| Abstract | | The author is discussing the introduction of a new article in the Penal Code-1 of the Republic of Slovenia from a medical point of view. This is the new Art. 125 of the Penal Code-1, where on the model of German law and based on German legal theory, medical interventions in themeselves are treated as a criminal injury. The author polemically discusses some of the foundations of German legal theory of physical injuries. Implementing a form of the Art. 125 of the Penal Code-1, it eliminates the unlawfulness after acquiring a qualified consent, with blank reference to other legislation, in this case the Patient's Rights Act and the Mental Health Act. The author points out the contradictions in the regulation of declarations of will in the latter two Acts and their impact on the interpretation of the Art. 125 of the Penal Code-1. Particular problems arise with the emergency medical service, where regulation of declarations of will significantly deviates from that of the Oviedo Convention. In conclusion, the author is drawing attention to related legislation (Austrian), where the implementation form (Penal Code) is different from the Slovenian, although it is inspired by similar legal theoretical basis as the German example.
|
| Summary | | Avtor iz medicinskega zornega kota polemično obravnava vnos novega člena v kazenski zakonik Republike Slovenije (KZ-1). Gre za novi 125. člen KZ-1, ki po vzoru nemške zakonodaje in na temelju nemške pravne teorije posege same po sebi obravnava kot kaznivo dejanje telesne poškodbe. Avtor polemično obravnava nekatere temelje nemške pravne teorije telesnih poškodb. V izvedbeni obliki 125. člen KZ-1 odpravlja protipravnost s pridobitvijo kvalificirane privolitve, pri čemer se blanketno sklicuje na drugo zakonodajo, v tem primeru na Zakon o pacientovih pravicah in Zakon o duševnem zdravju. Avtor opozarja na protislovja v pravni ureditvi izjav volje v slednjih dveh zakonih in njihov vpliv na tolmačenje 125. člena KZ-1. Posebne težave se pojavljajo pri nujni medicinski pomoči, kjer pravna ureditev izjav volje bistvena odstopa od ureditve v Oviedski konvenciji. V zaključku avtor opozori na sorodno zakonodajo (avstrijsko), kjer je izvedbena oblika (kazenski zakonik) drugačna od slovenske, čeprav sloni na podobnih pravno teoretičnih temeljih kot nemški zgled.
|