The adversarial nature of medical negligence litigation is subject to frequent criticism by the media, patient advocates, and scholars. In Ireland, reform of the medical negligence dynamic is often mooted, particularly in response to the high financial costs of this type of litigation; however, change in this area has been slow. Recently, the Irish courts have dealt with a number of high-profile, medical negligence disputes, including claims for those affected by the CervicalCheck controversy, which involved the failure to disclose the results of a retrospective audit to women who had developed cervical cancer. These cases have again highlighted the shortcomings of an adversarial system. This article explores the limitations of the tort system in the context of plaintiff aims in medical negligence disputes, drawing on empirical findings (qualitative interviews with patient support groups and barristers), and the literature. In doing so, the article argues that while financial compensation is necessary and appropriate in cases of medical negligence, the current system fails to recognise the often emotional nature of these claims, and the wider needs and aims of litigants involved in these disputes.

中文翻译：

---

原告针对医疗过失纠纷：对抗性制度的局限性。

医疗过失诉讼的对抗性经常受到媒体、患者权益保护者和学者的批评。在爱尔兰，经常讨论医疗过失动态的改革，特别是为了应对此类诉讼的高昂财务成本；然而，这方面的变化一直很缓慢。最近，爱尔兰法院处理了一些备受瞩目的医疗过失纠纷，包括受 CervicalCheck 争议影响的索赔，其中涉及未能披露对患宫颈癌的妇女进行回顾性检查的结果。这些案例再次凸显了对抗性制度的缺点。本文探讨了在原告目的背景下侵权制度在医疗过失纠纷中的局限性，借鉴实证研究结果（对患者支持团体和大律师的定性访谈）和文献。在这样做时，文章认为，虽然在医疗过失案件中经济赔偿是必要和适当的，但现行制度未能认识到这些索赔往往是情绪化的本质，以及参与这些纠纷的诉讼当事人的更广泛需求和目标。