Providing Redress for Medical Accidents in France: Conflicting Aims, Effective Solutions?

Abstract

The French medical accident compensation scheme, introduced in 2002, guarantees full compensation to the victims of serious medical accidents, irrespective of fault. Eight years after the scheme's inception, this article assesses the success of the redress regime so far, focusing in particular on the extent to which the regime has succeeded in achieving an appropriate balance between compensation and limiting cost, accountability and the promotion of openness. It argues that whilst the scheme facilitates the compensation of certain victims of medical accidents, retains the accountability of the medical profession and offers a less acrimonious redress mechanism than a traditional court action, these advantages have to be weighed against the resulting increased cost burden on the State, the fact that the scheme is unlikely to have a great impact on the reporting of accidents, and the increased overall complexity of the compensation and liability system in France. The article also considers to what extent the French experience is relevant in the broader European context. With cross-border patient movement increasing, differences in national solutions raise concerns as to disparities in redress rules depending on where the patient is treated. The issues with respect to medical accident redress which arise as a result of the European Commission's proposed directive on patient rights in cross-border health care are therefore briefly considered.