CRIMINAL LIABILITY IN THE FIELD OF MEDICAL ACTIVITY: THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN MEDICAL ERROR, REASONABLE RISK AND CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE

The article examines the criminal law criteria for distinguishing between medical error, justified professional risk, medical incident, innocent infliction of harm, and criminal negligence on the part of a medical worker. The relevance of the study is due to the ambiguity in the legal assessment of adverse consequences of medical intervention, the difficulty of establishing a causal relationship, and the need to distinguish between objectively permissible professional risk and culpable violation of mandatory safety requirements. The aim of the study is to develop a consistent model for the criminal law assessment of a medical worker’s conduct, taking into account the standards of medical care, the specific clinical situation, the nature of the violation committed, the foreseeability of the consequences, and the real possibility of preventing them. The proposed approach makes it possible to differentiate between cases of conscientious professional decision‑making, medical incidents, and criminal negligence, thereby avoiding both the unjustified criminalization of medical practice and the actual exemption from criminal liability when the statutory elements of a criminal offense are present and there are proper grounds for imposing liability.

1. Zhapparova, A.S. Vrachebnye oshibki: ponjatijnyj apparat i juridicheskie posledstvija [Jelektronnyj resurs] / A.S. Zhapparova // Astana Medical Journal. – 2026. – T. 126, № 3. – Rezhim dostupa: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/408312945_Medical_errors_Conceptual_framework_and_legal_consequences (data obrashhenija: 24.07.2026).

2. Tlembaeva, Zh.U. Strahovanie professional'noj otvetstvennosti medicinskih rabotnikov kak mehanizm zashhity prava na ohranu zdorov'ja / Zh.U. Tlembaeva // Vestnik Instituta zakonodatel'stva i pravovoj informacii Respubliki Kazahstan. – 2025. – T. 80, № 3. – S. 317-324.

3. Seidanov, A. Legal Liability of a Physician for Providing Inadequate Medical Care to a Patient: Analysis of Approaches Based on the Examples of Kazakhstan and the United States / A.A. Seidanov, et al. // Access to Justice in Eastern Europe. – 2024. – Vol. 7, № 3. – Pp. 410-438.

4. Rarog, A.I. Medicinskoe ugolovnoe pravo: monografija; / A.I. Rarog i dr. – Moskva: Prospekt, 2022. – 576 s.

5. Kratenko, M.V. Predely kriminalizacii vrachebnyh oshibok: podhody v rossijskom i zarubezhnom prave / M.V. Kratenko // Zhurnal rossijskogo prava. – 2023. – T. 27, № 7. – S. 119-132.

6. Malysheva, Ju.Ju. Genezis ponjatija vrachebnoj oshibki i ego otrazhenie v otechestvennom i zarubezhnom ugolovnom zakonodatel'stve / Ju.Ju. Malysheva // Gumanitarnye i politiko-pravovye issledovanija. – 2022. – № 4 (19). – S. 36-50.

7. Sveredjuk, M.G. Ugolovnaja otvetstvennost' v sfere zdravoohranenija: regional'nyj aspekt / M.G. Sveredjuk // Medicinskoe pravo. – 2023. – № 1. – S. 16-19.

8. Rarog, A.I. Medicinskij risk v ugolovnom prave / A.I. Rarog, T.G. Ponjatovskaja // Vserossijskij kriminologicheskij zhurnal. – 2021. –T. 15, № 3. – S. 321-331.

9. Mello, M.M. Malpractice Liability and Health Care Quality: A Review / M.M. Mello, et al. // JAMA. – 2020. – Vol. 323, № 4. – Pp. 352-366.

10. Brattebø, G. Errors in Medicine: Punishment versus Learning Medical Adverse Events Revisited - Expanding the Frame / G. Brattebø, H.K. Flaatten // Current Opinion in Anaesthesiology. – 2023. – Vol. 36, № 2. – Pp. 240-245.

11. Tlembaeva, Zh.U. Problemy regulirovanija otvetstvennosti pri ispol'zovanii iskusstvennogo intellekta v zdravoohranenii / Zh.U. Tlembaeva, R.S. Zhaltyrbaeva // Vestnik Instituta zakonodatel'stva i pravovoj informacii Respubliki Kazahstan. – 2026. – T. 81, № 2. – S. 334-343.

12. Cestonaro, C. Defining Medical Liability When Artificial Intelligence Is Applied on Diagnostic Algorithms: A Systematic Review / C. Cestonaro, et al. // Frontiers in Medicine. – 2023. – Vol. 10. – Art. 1305756.