A COMPARATIVE APPROACH TO MEDICAL MALPRACTICE LAW IN SAUDI ARABIA.pdf

Abstract

This paper explores medical malpractice litigation by comparing its processes in common law with the processes under the Saudi Sharia Laws applied by the Sharia Medical Panel. Under common law, the paper focuses on non-litigation approaches to resolving malpractice claims, application of the no-fault systems, and Alternative Resolution (ADR) methods for resolving claims such as arbitration, mediation, and conciliation. Discussions on litigation contexts focus on expert assessment panels in Western countries such as the US and the UK – especially the expert assessment medical tribunals in the state of Massachusetts. The paper outlines types of damages in the US in comparison to damages available in Saudi Arabia. The aim of this comparison is to establish differences in legislative practice that the Saudi legal system can adopt from other countries or global standards of practice used to address medical malpractice claims in common law systems. In addition, the comparison will show how the Ministry of Health can adopt those global standards to reform the Sharia Medical Panel and its jurisdiction over malpractice claims. The paper ends with the analysis of issues within and criticism against the Sharia Medical Panel’s compensatory damage award system.