{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.017278617710583154, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0021598272138228943, 'mean_word_length': 5.221476510067114, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
[Civil rights responsibility of the physician: content and limits].

The article illustrates how court opinion has shaped the malpractice issue for medical doctors during the last 40 years and places this development in the general context of civil liability. Jurisprudence in the higher courts has been generally moderate in its steady interpretation of material and procedural questions to illustrate the issue of contractual liability and negligence for physicians and hospitals and also to secure wide-spread legal precedence. A prediction of the future legal development gives rise, however, to some misgivings. Not only will the issue of negligence without fault be questioned but also that of malpractice. This constitutive element of self-employment must not be weakened in any way. Financial, personal, or equipment deficiencies must not be allowed to become liability risks for medical doctors as a matter of course.