DEFAMATION IN THE FIELD OF HEALTH CARE: COLLEGIALITY OF DOCTORS VS. CRITICAL ASSESSMENT OF DOCTORS' ACTIVITIES

Abstract

From the scientific point of view, the issue of defamation is poorly researched and not properly regulated at the legislative level. This this issue is even more crucial if talking about defamation in the field of health care.
 Defamation is the dissemination of unreliable information about a person, which degrades their honor and dignity, damages business reputation. Defamation is synonymous with the notion “humiliation of honor, dignity and business reputation”. In general, Ukrainian legislation does not use the term defamation, however, as a laconic meaningful word of foreign origin, it is actively used in practice and in the legislation of some other countries.
 It should be noted that the unreliability (falsity) of the information disseminated together with the conclusion that it defames a person; are the integral part of the definition of responsibility for defamation. Otherwise, if the disseminated information does not defame the person, although it does not correspond to reality, there would be no defamatory tort.
 Defamation is the legal institution through which civil law strikes a balance and implements the above-mentioned conflict between the constitutional right to refute unreliable information, i.e. the judicial protection of honor, dignity and business reputation, on the one hand; and, on the other, constitutional law to the freedom of thought and speech, freedom of the media.
 Therefore, it is expedient to form a “defamatory balance” between the collegiality of physicians and a critical assessment of their conduct, which can be achieved by the prevailing right to freedom of expression to protect the lives and health of patients, action in the public interest, based on the case law of the European Court of Human Rights.