Ethical and Legal Dimensions of Compensation for Loss of a Chance in the Treatment of Acute Neurological Diseases: A Comparitive Analysis of the Legal Systems of Iran, England and the United States
akhlāq-i pizishkī i.e., Medical Ethics,
Vol. 20 (1405),
13 July 2026
,
Page 1-13
https://doi.org/10.22037/mej.v20i.51606
Abstract
Background and Aim: Loss of chance in medical treatment is one of the most challenging issues at the intersection of medical ethics and professional liability, particularly in acute neurological diseases where time plays a decisive role in treatment outcomes. In such cases, medical negligence does not necessarily lead to death or permanent disability, but rather to a significant reduction in the chance of recovery or prevention of irreversible damage. This situation makes it difficult to establish a definitive causal relationship and leads to the denial of compensation in many legal systems. Therefore, examining how different legal systems address this issue may help explain the ethical and legal foundations of compensation for such damage. The aim of this study is to comparatively examine the ethical and legal dimensions of compensation for damage following loss of chance in treatment in acute neurological diseases in the legal systems of Iran, England, and the United States.
Methods: This research is a review study. Keywords, including "Loss of chance", "Medical malpractice", "Causation" and "Medical liability" were searched in PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar, SID, Magiran and Noormags databases. Relevant legal texts and selected case law were studied and analyzed.
Ethical Considerations: Throughout all stages of the present research, the authenticity of sources and the principles of honesty and academic integrity were observed.
Results: The findings indicate that English law, with a conservative approach, generally refuses to recognize loss of chance as an independent compensable damage. In contrast, many U.S. jurisdictions, by adopting a proportional loss of recovery, have provided a more ethically responsive compensation framework for the damage suffered by patients. Despite having significant ethical and jurisprudential foundations, Iranian law faces a gap between time-sensitive medical realities and legal remedies due to the lack of explicit recognition of this doctrine.
Conclusion: Disregarding loss of treatment opportunity solely due to uncertainty in outcomes is inconsistent with the principles of medical ethics and therapeutic justice. Ethical-legal recognition of loss of chance, subject to scientific and legal safeguards, can be an effective step towards fair protection of patients, especially in acute neurological diseases.
- Loss of Chance
- Medical Ethics
- Medical Liability
- Therapeutic Justice
- Acute Neurological Diseases
How to Cite
References
1. Jangala MS, Kavya C, Subramanyam PB, Rajan SV. A Prospective Study on Safety and Functional Outcome with Tenecteplase Intravenous Thrombolysis in Middle Cerebral Artery Ischemic Stroke. European Journal of Cardiovascular Medicine. 2025;15(1):50-7.
2. Hassan K, Rohatgi S. Brain attack: Time to act now. Medical Journal, Armed Forces India. 2011;65(1):62-5.
3. Babaei I. Civil Liability Law and Non-Contractual Obligations. Tehran: Mizan Legal Foundation; 2018. p.77. [Persian]
4. Kazemi M. The theory of lost opportunity in civil liability. Law and Political Science. 2001;53:185-228. [Persian]
5. Barikloo A. Civil liability. 7th ed. Tehran: Mizan Law Foundation; 2017. p.84. [Persian]
6. Bal SB, Brenner LH. Medicolegal sidebar: The law and social values: Loss of chance. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research. 2014;472(10):2923-6.
7. House of Lords. Gregg (FC) (Appellant) v. Scott (Respondent) [Internet]. London: UK Parliament; 2005 [cited 2026 Apr 23]. Available from: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200405/ldjudgmt/jd050127/greg-1.htm.
8. Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. Matsuyama v. Birnbaum, 452 Mass. 1, 890 N.E.2d 819 [Internet]. Massachusetts (MA): Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts; 2008 [cited 2026 Apr 23]. Available from: https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/matsuy ama-v-birnbaum-sjc-894088673.
9. Picken MM, Dogan A, Herrera GA. Amyloid and related disorders: Surgical pathology and clinical correlations. Cham: Springer Science & Business Media; 2012. p.39.
10. Mashhadizadeh A, Imani K. Modern Approaches to Assessment of Loss of Chance Damages due to Medical Malpractice. Private Law. 2024;20(2):291-305.
11. Stauch MS. Causation Issues in Medical Malpractice: A United Kingdom Perspective. Annals of Health Law and Life Sciences. 1996;5(1):247-58.
12. Fordham M. Loss of Chance-A Lost Opportunity. Singapore Journal of Legal Studies. 2005:204-17.
13. Van den Heever P. The Application of the Doctrine of a Loss of a Chance to Recover in Medical Law. Pretoria: Pretoria University Law Press; 2007. p.39-40, 53-5.
14. American College of Legal Medicine, American Board of Legal Medicine. Legal medicine: Health care law and medical ethics. 8th ed. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2024. p.464.
15. Salehi HR. Civil liability arising from the medical treatment process. Tehran: Mizan Law Foundation; 2017. p.297, 304-5. [Persian]
16. Jafari J, Mahdavi SMH. Judicial Analysis in Loss of Opportunity Acceptance. Journal of Islamic Law & Jurisprudence Researches. 2015;11(41):11-32. [Persian]
17. Lam CM. Revisiting Loss of Chance in Medical Negligence: Employing Public Policy Positively as Justification. Journal of Professional Negligence. 2020;36(3):104-32.
18. Goldberg R. Medical Malpractice and Compensation in the UK. Chicago-Kent Law Review. 2011;87(1):131.
19. Van Dam C. European tort law. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2013. p.339.
20. Barrie M. Personal Injury Law: Liability, Compensation, Procedure. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005. p.147.
21. House of Lords. Hotson v East Berkshire Health Authority, [1987] AC 750, [1987] 3 WLR 232, [1987] 2 All ER 909 [Internet]. London: House of Lords; 1987 [cited 2026 Apr 23]. Available from: https://vlex.co.uk/ vid/hotson-p-v-east-793615045.
22. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Hicks v. United States, 368 F.2d 626 (4th Cir.) [Internet]. Richmond (VA): United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit; 1966 [cited 2026 Apr 23]. Available from: https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/ hicks-v-united-states-891251696.
23. Supreme Court of Minnesota. Fabio v. Bellomo, 504 N.W.2d 758 (Minn.) [Internet]. Saint Paul (MN): Supreme Court of Minnesota; 1993 [cited 2026 Mar 23]. Available from: https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/ fabio-v-bellomo-no-888933491.
24. Supreme Court of Minnesota. Dickhoff v. Green, 836 N.W.2d 321 (Minn.) [Internet]. Saint Paul (MN): Supreme Court of Minnesota; 2013 [cited 2026 Mar 23]. Available from: https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/par ents-v-green-no-893709168.
25. Supreme Court of Oregon. Smith v. Providence Health & Services-Oregon [Internet]. Salem (OR): Supreme Court of Oregon; 2017 [cited 2026 Apr 23]. Available from: https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/smith-v-providence-health-887078416.
26. al-Bahrani Y. Al-Hada’iq al-Nadira fi Ahkam al-‘Itrah al-Tahirah. Qom: Islamic Publications Institute; 1985. p.252.
27. al-Najafi M. Jawaher al-Kalam fi Sharh Shara’i al-Islam. Beirut: Dar Ihya al-Turath al-Arabi; 1981. p.389.
28. Katouzian A. Non-contractual obligations (tort liability). 13th ed. Tehran: University of Tehran Press; 2014. p.282.
29. Chaudhary SR, Roy S. How stroke imaging shapes malpractice risk. Academic Radiology. 2025;32(Suppl 1):S114-S8.
- Abstract Viewed: 39 times
- pdf Downloaded: 0 times