Summary

The Estonian medical law has reached its next milestone: for the first time, the Criminal Law Chamber of the Supreme Court has taken a position in a charge brought against a doctor in connection with her professional activities. The author analyses the judgment and finds that although, in applying several important principles of medical law, the Supreme Court has not taken into account the exceptions recognised in theory, the court has reached the correct conclusions.
As the judgment of the Supreme Court under review pointed to a gap in the Estonian law, de lege lata, - the insufficient legal regulation of the legal protection of the physical inviolability in the Constitution -, the author examines the possibilities of protecting the right of physical inviolability under penal law and offers different solutions. Since the Penal Code tabled before the Riigikogu does not provide for the de lege ferenda protection of the right of the physical inviolability of patients, the author puts forward proposals to amend the Code.
Finally, the author focuses on the problems related to the limitation period. The legal nature of the concept of limitation and its belonging to a specific branch of law have so far attracted little interest in the Estonian penal law regardless of the fact that the Criminal Code in force has been amended on numerous occasions and that a new Penal Code will be enacted soon. In the author’s opinion, the case under review is a good example showing that the changes made in the penal law tend to have a future focus and fail to solve topical problems encountered in the society today which have often triggered amendments of the Criminal Code in the past.