Alternative dispute resolution in turkish medical law: evaluating conciliation and mediation for medical malpractice cases

This study explores conciliation and mediation as alternatives to litigation in resolving healthcare disputes in Türkiye. Disputes often stem from medical errors, unmet expectations, or communication failures. Conciliation, commonly used in countries like France, Italy, and the UK, is a structured negotiation led by a neutral third party. In Türki- ye, conciliation applies to criminal medical malpractice cases involving reckless injury or privacy violations, while mediation is reserved for civil claims such as compensation. Legal prerequisites for conciliation include a formal complaint and the exclusion of specific crimes, such as sexual offenses. Public sector disputes may also require administrative approvals. Benefits of conciliation include faster resolution, reduced emotional and financial strain, and protection of reputations, especially valuable for healthcare professionals lacking malpractice insurance. Me- diation offers confidential and efficient settlements in civil cases, aiding both patients and private providers. The study advocates incorporating conciliation into Turkish health law to enhance dispute resolution, alle- viate judicial burdens, and strengthen patient-provider trust.