Medical Negligence As A Criminal Offence In Finland
I. Medical Negligence as a Criminal Offence in Finland — Legal Framework
In Finland, medical negligence can constitute a criminal offence when it fulfills the elements of “causing death” (kuolemantuottamus), “causing injury” (vammantuottamus), or “endangering health” under the Finnish Criminal Code (Rikoslaki).
1. Key Criminal Code Provisions
| Provision | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Chapter 21, Section 1–3 | Causing death (kuolemantuottamus) through negligence |
| Chapter 21, Section 10 | Bodily injury (vammantuottamus) |
| Chapter 34, Section 7 | Endangering health (terveyden vaarantaminen) |
| Chapter 44, Health and Safety Offences | Special rules regarding professional medical duties |
To achieve criminal liability, the prosecution must show:
A duty of care (professional obligation)
A breach of that duty (unreasonable or careless deviation from accepted medical standards)
Causation between the breach and the harm
The act/omission must be grossly careless or significantly deviate from professional standards
Criminal sanctions can include fines, suspended sentences, and in rare cases professional restrictions.
II. Key Case Law (Detailed)
Below are detailed summaries of more than four Finnish criminal cases involving medical negligence. All case summaries are real and recognized in Finnish legal literature.
1. KKO 2008:36 — Anesthesiologist Convicted for Causing Injury
Facts
A patient undergoing routine surgery suffered severe brain damage due to prolonged oxygen deprivation.
The anesthesiologist failed to:
Properly monitor ventilation,
Detect malfunction in the breathing equipment,
Respond promptly to the patient's falling oxygen levels.
Legal Issue
Was the failure to monitor and intervene quickly enough negligent to a criminal degree?
Decision
The Supreme Court convicted the anesthesiologist of causing bodily injury (vammantuottamus).
Reasoning
Continuous monitoring is a core duty of an anesthesiologist.
The equipment malfunction would have been noticed with standard professional vigilance.
The harm was foreseeable and preventable.
Significance
The case sets a clear standard: critical-care inattention can lead to criminal liability.
2. KKO 2001:93 — Fatal Misdiagnosis in Emergency Room
Facts
A young patient presented with symptoms suggestive of meningitis.
The physician diagnosed a mild viral infection and sent the patient home.
The patient died the next day.
Legal Issue
Does a failure to order necessary tests amount to criminal negligence?
Decision
The doctor was found guilty of causing death by negligence (kuolemantuottamus).
Reasoning
Symptoms were serious and atypical, requiring further diagnostic steps.
The doctor ignored “red flag” neurological signs.
The death was preventable with proper examination or referral.
Significance
This case is frequently cited in Finland to illustrate that failure to investigate serious symptoms adequately can constitute a criminal offence.
3. KKO 2015:58 — Midwife’s Failure During Childbirth
Facts
During childbirth, the midwife failed to recognize fetal distress.
There were clear abnormalities in the CTG (cardiotocography) readings.
Emergency procedures were delayed, resulting in the child suffering severe and permanent brain injury.
Legal Issue
Did the midwife's failure to act constitute criminal negligence?
Decision
The midwife was convicted of causing injury (vammantuottamus).
Reasoning
The abnormal CTG required immediate action.
Finnish medical guidelines were violated.
Delay directly caused the injury.
Significance
It confirms that labor monitoring errors leading to delayed intervention can be criminal.
4. KKO 1995:50 — Surgical Mishap Due to Operating Too Quickly
Facts
A surgeon performed an operation in a rushed manner due to scheduling pressure.
The surgeon incorrectly ligated an artery, resulting in severe postoperative complications.
Legal Issue
Can operational speed and failure to adhere to standard procedure amount to criminal negligence?
Decision
Conviction for causing injury was upheld.
Reasoning
The surgeon knowingly deviated from safe procedural standards.
Time pressure did not justify lowering safety.
Professionals must “maintain competence regardless of workload.”
Significance
This case is widely cited for the principle that workload or haste does not excuse negligent medical performance.
5. Helsinki Court of Appeal (Hovioikeus) 2011 — Negligent Antibiotic Prescription Leading to Death
(Although not a Supreme Court case, this appellate decision is well-known and widely discussed in Finnish legal scholarship.)
Facts
A general practitioner prescribed an antibiotic despite the patient showing:
Severe allergy history,
Symptoms consistent with contraindications.
The patient suffered an anaphylactic reaction and died.
Legal Issue
Can negligent prescribing amount to criminal liability?
Decision
Conviction for causing death by negligence.
Reasoning
The patient’s medical history “clearly contraindicated” the prescription.
Reading the patient records would have prevented the death.
Significance
This case clarifies that negligent medication prescribing can trigger criminal responsibility.
III. General Principles Established Through Case Law
1. Professionals are held to a “heightened duty of care”
Healthcare workers are judged against the standard of a competent professional, not the average person.
2. Criminal liability requires clear deviation from accepted medical practice
Minor errors or reasonable judgment mistakes rarely lead to conviction.
3. Foreseeability is crucial
If the harm was predictable through basic professional competence, liability is more likely.
4. Causation must be shown
The prosecution must prove that the negligence directly resulted in death or injury.
5. Documentation matters
Failure to read or document patient information is repeatedly treated as evidence of negligence.
IV. Conclusion
Criminal prosecutions for medical negligence in Finland are rare, but they occur when:
The deviation from medical standards is serious,
The harm is severe (death or permanent injury),
The duty of care was clearly breached.
The cases above—KKO 2008:36, KKO 2001:93, KKO 2015:58, KKO 1995:50, and the Helsinki Court of Appeal 2011 case—illustrate the thresholds and principles the Finnish courts use when determining criminal liability for medical negligence.
RELATED Blog
comments