Legislators are calling for all doctors accused of medical errors to be questioned by Public Prosecution officers to cut down on multiple agency investigations into time-consuming ‘frivolous’ complaints.
The proposed amendment to the 1989 Human Medicine and Dentistry Law has been presented by five MPs, led by Jalal Kadhem Al Mahfoodh.
The aim of the amendment is to remove other authorities or institutions from being able to directly interrogate medics in such cases.
The new regulation establishes that when a medical error is suspected or alleged, the only entity authorised to conduct formal questioning of the involved doctor or medical team is the Public Prosecution.
This means that bodies such as medical boards, private entities or insurance companies could no longer hold the authority to investigate medics directly.
“The rationale behind this law is to create a more uniformed and regulated process for handling sensitive cases, ensuring that only a legal body with comprehensive investigatory powers and resources handles them,” said Mr Al Mahfoodh.
“The Health Ministry or the National Health Regulatory Authority (NHRA) have the power to send a representative to oversee the questioning process but without it being considered as a standing complaint until the Public Prosecution produces its findings,” he explained.
“By centralising investigations under the Public Prosecution, the law aims to reduce the likelihood of arbitrary or fragmented inquiries. Doctors would only face questioning only through a standardised, legal framework.”
Mr Al Mahfoodh said one of the main goals of this law is to protect doctors from what some view as unnecessary harassment or scrutiny by multiple parties.
“Currently, medical professionals could be subjected to investigations from various sources, which often lead to overlapping inquiries, professional pressure and reputational damage.
“The new law aims to ensure that doctors are questioned only when a formal legal procedure is initiated.
“While the Public Prosecution takes charge of questioning, medical experts will continue to play a critical role in these cases.
“Expert testimony will still be required to establish whether or not a medical error occurred, ensuring that legal authorities are well-informed by relevant medical knowledge.”
He added that the legislation also includes provisions for clearer guidelines on what constitutes a medical error, outlining specific criteria that must be met before legal proceedings are initiated.
“This aims to differentiate between genuine mistakes, medical complications and negligence,” Mr Al Mahfoodh added.
He said doctors often operate in high-stress environments and the threat of being questioned by multiple agencies for alleged medical errors could potentially hinder their ability to provide the appropriate care in emergencies.
“By streamlining the process, the law seeks to relieve some of this pressure and prevent unnecessary distractions,” he said. “Some argue that in certain regions, the medical field has become overly litigious, with doctors facing frequent lawsuits and investigations that may not always be warranted.
“This legislation is designed to prevent frivolous claims from escalating into formal inquiries, allowing only cases with substantial evidence to proceed.”
Mr Al Mahfoodh said for healthcare providers, this new legislation may be seen as a welcome change, offering protection from unnecessary or multiple investigations while still holding their staff and institution accountable under the law.
“It could also provide more peace of mind, knowing that questioning will only occur when legally mandated,” he said. “The new legislation restricting the questioning of doctors for medical errors to the Public Prosecution represents a significant shift in how medical malpractice and accountability accusations are handled.
“By centralising the investigative process, this updated law offers greater protection to doctors while also aiming to streamline legal proceedings, in our opinion.”
The proposed legislation has been forwarded by Speaker Ahmed Al Musallam to the services committee for review.
The Speaker has asked for clarification in the first instance. He is seeking information on any potential impact on patient rights, transparency and the speed of investigations.
He has also questioned how this new legislation would shape the relationship between medical professionals, patients and the legal system.
NHRA’s annual 2023 report released earlier this year revealed that a total of 47 lawsuits were filed against private hospitals and 42 against public facilities involving doctors, nurses, pharmacists and other healthcare workers.
Dentistry topped with the distribution of lawsuits based on speciality with 53 cases followed by obstetrics and gynaecology (32) and dermatology (16).
Disciplinary decision was issued by the relevant NHRA section against doctors (20), nurses (6), allied health professionals (3), pharmacists and pharmacies (4) and against a health facility (7).
Ten doctors were suspended after investigation, two had their licences revoked and seven received written warnings. Four nurses were suspended and two issued with written warnings.
mohammed@gdnmedia.bh
&uuid=(email))