In short
Surgery on the wrong side is an incision on the opposite side from the organ or limb that was planned, and it is not an expected complication of that procedure. The patient asks for the marking, the side on the consent, and the side in the operation note to be placed side by side. A poor outcome does not, by itself, show that the side was wrong. A forgotten swab and an unnecessary incision are separate doors. A damages figure and a statistic are not written in this text.
Writing right or left on the consent form does not mean that the mark placed on the skin is that side. The operation note is the third line. If the three conflict, one asks which record was written during the procedure. A line corrected later is read separately if it carries no trace of the correction. The petition does not merge the three lines onto one side.
The mark, the consent, and the note are three lines
The mark on the skin should have been placed before the procedure. If there is no photograph of the mark, the absence is not completed by saying the mark was never placed. If there is a photograph, the side in the photograph is read with the side in the note. How the file is requested is asked together with the identity and the record lines. If the document does not write which limb the mark was placed on, the side is not filled in by guesswork.
The content of consent stands under informed consent. If there is no form at all, that door is not a copy of the conflict of sides. If the correct side is written on the form and another side was cut, the problem is the check of the side, not the absence of consent. The word on the consent does not by itself confirm the mark on the skin. A decision is not built before the two lines are seen.
A complication label does not close the conflict
The ordinary risk of the planned surgery is not named as an incision on the opposite side. A sentence of complication does not close the conflict between the mark and the note. Poor healing does not, by itself, show that the side was wrong. If the correct side was cut and the outcome was poor, the record that is read is the distinction of complication. If the opposite side was cut, the record that is read is the mark and the note. The two pictures are not folded into the same minute.
If a correction was added to the note after the surgery, the time of the addition is asked. If there is no time, the addition is not treated as having replaced the first line. The minute should write the side that was cut in plain terms. A side that is not written does not stand in the petition as if it were there. The application separates which line belongs to the moment of the procedure. A result is not built before the conflict of documents is seen.
A swab, an unnecessary incision, and the wrong patient are separate
Whether the surgery was medically necessary stands under unnecessary surgery. The correct side can be unnecessary as well. The wrong side is the performance of a necessary surgery in the opposite direction. A swab left in the body stands under retained material. Surgery performed on another person stands under the wrong patient. The three records are not put in place of the side mark.
An incision made on the wrong side can leave the illness of the correct side in place. A second surgery does not by itself enlarge the wrongness of the first note. The second note is read separately. The petition does not write the second incision in place of the first mark. The decision separates the side line of the two operations. An invoice does not always carry which side was cut.
A second operation does not enlarge the sum
A damages figure and a statistic are not added to this record. The figure does not take the place of the mark. A statistic does not turn the conflict in a single file into a count. If the lines match, a wrong-side claim is not built. If the lines conflict, the figure is still not put in place of the conflict. A ratio is not written into the petition. The patient asks for their own photograph of the mark. If there is no photograph, the absence is not completed by saying the opposite side was cut.
Additional harm is read from the sentence of the first note. If the note does not write the opposite side, the additional harm does not give birth to that writing. The document can also carry the reason for the second surgery separately. If the reason conflicts with the first mark, the conflict stands. If there is no conflict, the second surgery is not treated as proof of the wrong side. A decision is not built before the reason is seen.
Where the side is read from
The question of what happens if surgery is done on the wrong side is built from the mark, the consent, and the operation note. This incision is not treated as an expected complication. A damages figure and a statistic are not written. A swab, an unnecessary incision, and the wrong patient are not put in place of this side in the petition.
The office in Çankaya does not choose the authority the file will go to.
Conclusion
The wrong side is read from the conflict of the mark, the consent, and the operation note. A complication label does not close that conflict. A swab and the wrong patient are separate doors. A damages figure and a statistic are not written. The frame stands on the health law page. The basis is Law No. 1219.