ABSTRACT

The aim of the study is to compare the differences in deter-mining the severity of trauma in medicolegal reports due to use of the old and the new Turkish Penal Code, discuss the objec-tivity and convenience of these reports with regard to scienti-fic criteria in order to prevent possible loss of personal rights. Medicolegal reports prepared in the Mersin University, Fa-culty of Medicine, Department of Forensic Medicine between 2004 and 2005 are evaluated according to old and new Turkish Penalty Codes.

Nine-hundred fifty-seven medicolegal reports were evaluated. The mean age of the patients was 28.6 + 15.5 years; 26.4% were female and 73.6% were male. Most common types of trau-mas were traffic accidents (36.4%), stab wounds (14.4%) and to-xicities (10.9%).

Life threatening conditions weren’t present in %75.3, inter-ruption of daily activities were between 0 and 10 days in 42.4%, permanent facial scar was present in 11.9%, organ insufficiency was present in %2.7 and organ failure was present in 2.6% of the reports prepared according to the old Turkish Penalty Code.

Of the injuries 58.4% were reported as treatable with simple medical intervention, permanent facial scar was present in 12.6%, organ insufficiency was present in 3.7% and organ failure was present in 1.7% of the reports prepared according to the new Turkish Penalty Code. Bone fractures were present in 337 cases and most commonly reported conclusion was the “mode-rate influence of fracture on vital functions”

Using scoring system in bone fractures and inclusion of the anterior part of the neck to the “face border” are positive deve-lopments of the new Turkish Penalty Code. However this new evaluation system has some handicaps. Scoring system of bone fractures must be reevaluated. More objective and scientific pa-rameters must be used in the evaluation of simple medical in-tervention, organ insufficiency and organ failure as well.