Advertisement

Journal of Consumer Policy

, Volume 29, Issue 2, pp 143–175 | Cite as

Nordic compensation schemes for drug injuries

  • Christopher Hodges
Original Paper

Abstract

Sweden, Finland, Denmark, and Norway each operate successful no fault compensation schemes for injuries caused by both medical treatment and use of medicinal products. The existence of these schemes avoids the necessity for claims to be resolved through the courts, as medical negligence or product liability claims. The schemes are administrative/inquisitorial and cheap to operate, both in terms of administration costs and cost of sums paid. The low level of the latter costs is due to both low historic levels of damages, as would be awarded by courts, and particularly the fact that compensation is paid to injured persons from various sources, with no recourse being taken between the different sources. The schemes offer significant attractions, but it is difficult to see how they could be applied in other States given the background economic pre-conditions.

Keywords

Compensation schemes Nordic Sweden Finland Norway Denmark Product liability 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Baldwin, P. (1990). The politics of social solidarity: The foundation of European welfare states 1875–1975. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Calderini, M., Cantamessa, M., & Palamigiano, A. (2004). Analysis of the economic impact of the development risk clause as provided by Directive 85/374/EEC on liability for defective products. Rome, Italy: Fondazione Roselli.Google Scholar
  3. Danzon, P. M. (1994). The Swedish patient compensation system: Lessons for the United States. The Journal of Legal Medicine, 15, 199–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dufwa, B. W. (1980). Product liability legislation. General problems and techniques. The Swedish experience. In Tidskrift, utgiven av Juridiska Föreningen I (Finland), pp. 1–11.Google Scholar
  5. Donaldson, L. (2003). Making amends: A consultation paper setting out proposals for reforming the approach to clinical negligence in the NHS: A report by the Chief Medical Officer (UK Department of Health). London: Department of Health.Google Scholar
  6. Dute, J., Faure, M. G., & Koziol, H. (Eds.) (2004). Tort and insurance law, Vol. 8: No-fault compensation in the health care sector. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  7. Lodrup, P. (2002). Norwegian report. AIDA XIth World Congress, New York, 22–25 October 2002, (pp. 117–150). Dansk Selskab for Forsikringsret [Danish Section of the International Association of Insurance Law].Google Scholar
  8. McIntosh, D., & Holmes, M. (2003). Personal injury awards in EU and EFTA countries (2nd ed.). The Hague: Kluwer Law International.Google Scholar
  9. Oldertz, C. (1986). Security insurance, patient insurance and pharmaceutical insurance in Sweden. American Journal of Comparative Law, 34, 635–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Oliphant, K. (2004). Beyond Woodhouse: Devising new principles for determining ACC boundary issues. Victoria University of Wellington Law Review, 35(4), Special Issue on Accident Compensation, 915–936.Google Scholar
  11. Skegg, P. D. G. (2003). Compensation in the New Zealand health care sector. In J. Dute, M. G. Faure, & H. Koziol (Eds.) (2004), Tort and insurance law, Vol. 8: No-fault compensation in the health care sector (pp. 298–332). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  12. Von Eyben, B. (Ed.) (2002). Alternative compensation mechanisms for damages. The Nordic countries: Common report and national reports. AIDA XIth World Congress, New York, 22–25 October 2002 (pp. 117–150). Dansk Selskab for Forsikringsret [Danish Section of the International Association of Insurance Law].Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Socio-Legal StudiesUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations