fautif

15:12 Feb 20, 2020 

In the examples you give, where a natural disaster or similar catastrophe has made all nearby doctors unable to provide normal medical care, the word "fautif" wouldn't be used because it isn't their "faute."

13:55 Feb 17, 2020 

You say "care that was inadequate according to normal medical standards IS negligence". Really? I suggest that would not be so in a situation where due to e.g. fire, flood, earthquake or the doctor being suddely taken ill, the normal standard of care could not be delivered.

21:05 Feb 12, 2020 

You said, "First you have to demonstrate what happened or failed to happen, i.e. the inadequacy, then you have to demonstrate that it resulted from negligence."

That's actually not how it works. In medical malpractice cases, you just have to prove what should've been done (i.e. what the standard of care is, a.k.a. what doctors/nurses/etc. are supposed to do in such a situation). If that wasn't done, then the defendant is negligent.

Medical negligence just means "not doing what doctors are supposed to do" (or nurses, or respiratory therapists, or whatever the defendant is). You don't have to "demonstrate that [what happened/failed to happen] resulted from negligence," because care that was inadequate according to normal medical standards IS negligence:

"Stated simply, medical malpractice, or medical negligence, is medical care or treatment that falls below the accepted standard of care and causes actual harm to a patient." https://www.natlawreview.com/article/medical-malpractice-cau...

15:59 Feb 12, 2020 

Of course they used both terms, because if the lawyers couldn't show that the inadequate treatment amounted to malpractice or medical negligence, they wouldn't be able to win their case. First you have to demonstrate what happened or failed to happen, i.e. the inadequacy, then you have to demonstrate that it resulted from negligence. However, "un suivi post-opératoire fautif" is not saying that a person was "fautif", so it seems to cover the first step of what needs to be demonstrated.

15:49 Feb 12, 2020 

The first link you cite to uses the term "inadequate medical care," but did you notice that it does so on a page that's entitled "Medical Negligence"?

"Posted in Case Studies, Medical Negligence"
https://www.roydswithyking.com/inadequate-post-operative-car...

Your second cite is even more supportive of "negligent" as the translation:

Title: "Inadequate Postoperative Care that Amounts to Medical Malpractice"
First sentence + excerpt: "Medical negligence can occur with regard to postoperative care.... If a patient suffers an injury as a result of negligent postoperative care, they may be able to file a medical malpractice claim against the doctor..."
https://www.paulsonandnace.com/inadequate-postoperative-care...

15:45 Feb 12, 2020 

A word standing alone can have several meanings -- just glance in any dictionary to see how true that is. However, once you put the word in a sentence, the range of possible meanings goes down: you obviously wouldn't use "negligent" to translate "La mémoire des vieillards est souvent fautive," for instance. You might say "faulty" there instead.

Here, we have a sentence about the quality of post-operative care by a doctor, in the context of an investigation into possible medical malpractice. You wouldn't say "faulty," even though in the abstract that can certainly be a correct translation of "fautif."

As for what you said about your links re "attributing blame," that's exactly the issue here: it's an investigation into medical malpractice to determine whether there was FAUTE médicale by this doctor. Faute = fault = blame/legal responsibility. That's what "fautif" means here: is the doctor to blame? That's why we translate it as negligent rather than inadquate -- because the issue is whether the doctor is legally responsible.

08:39 Feb 12, 2020 

faulty, flawed, imperfect.