compromising the obligation to due diligence. The courts, for example, decided that the physician should ensure good quality of the device he uses in oral rehabilitation or dental implant. The court’s decision was that “if the physician’s obligation in a dental surgery is limited to due diligence, he should achieve the expected result”. This means that he should use reliable materials and supplies in dental implants. The court implemented this rule with respect to diseases arising from blood transfusion by binding the blood transfusion center to guarantee the safety of the patients concerned. This allows for compensation of the patients suffering from AIDS or hepatitis due to contracting an infection while undergoing blood transfusion within the medical facility.14 The French courts issued three rulings holding hospitals accountable for nosocomial infections since hospitals are responsible for ensuring the safety of the patients against any hospital-acquired disease. They also have an obligation to ensure the safety of the patient in compliance with the following provisions: 1) the contractual relationship between the hospital and the patient during the stay as an in-patient provides that the hospital is responsible for ensuring protection for the patient against hospital-acquired disease and cannot disclaim such responsibility unless an external cause for an infection is proven; 2) the physician should give information to the patient about the risks of the therapeutic intervention; and 3) the physical should be liable for a nosocomial infection unless an external cause for the infection is proven.15 The Role of the Legislature in Developing a Legal Infrastructure for Medical Malpractice Issues The intervention of law-makers to draft provisions of law regulating the relationship between the patient and the physician, especially in regard to medical malpractice, has become necessary. This additionally applies to healthcare professionals other than physicians when they also have cases of malpractice. Such provisions are necessary for the regulating of relationships instead of keeping cases of medical malpractice subjected to strictly juridical interpretations which might contradict each other. Some jurists and legal specialists claim that such law could be futile because the general provisions of law allow for holding accountable any professional breaching 14 15 See Qasim. Abdulhameed, p. 137. 6