The right to free choice of doctors does not exist 1PHOTO (Betaphoto / Government of Serbia / Slobodan Miljević)

A comprehensive article on patients in Serbia around the possibility of exercising the right to another professional opinion has illuminated certain aspects of this provision from the patient’s law law. On that occasion, several health professionals and legal professionals presented their views regarding the possibilities of achieving this right. However, the basic mismatch of the said law with international charters and conventions on human rights and from them were performed by the patient rights.

It is important to note that the domestic law on patients partially draws its norms from the « Roman Charter on Patient Rights », and this Charter has a legal basis in the binding « EU-fundamental human rights.

Since the « Roman Charter » contains the right of free choice between the various issues (SIC), why the Law on Patients’ Rights does not allow the patient a free choice of doctors and in the private sector, as envisaged by the Member of the « Roman Charter », not only in the state health? And especially important for our and professional and spicy public, a free choice of doctors in the private sector under this Charter implies a private doctor’s health services under the legally prescribed compulsory contribution / taxes of the patient / insured person.

From the above, it can be concluded that the right to a free choice of doctors in state or private health is a necessary precondition for realistic realization from the presented right, the right to another professional opinion that the connection that professional circles do not most often notice.

Other harmful consequences of the law on the patient’s rights with international charters and conventions are noticeable. It is generally known that the existence of long lists of waiting in state health care, in addition to many other problems, forces citizens to seek service in the private sector. Private Health Services The patient additionally pays from pocket, above 10.2% of mandatory contribution that pays into RFZO.

Necessity of double payments has a number of negative consequences as significantly reduces accessibility, righteousness and equality in exercising their rights to health care, especially for numerous citizens of more modest property status resulting in discriminatory effects. It must therefore critically state that such a law on patient rights, abolishing the right to a premise in the state or private sector, in principle of patient, actually participating in discriminatory mechanisms with disastrous outcomes for a large number of citizens needed by health service.

The author is the Coordinator of NGO doctors against corruption

The author’s attitudes in the dialogue not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Danas.

Follow us on our Facebook and Instagram page, but also on X account. Subscribe to PDF List release today.