Full text rendered from the published PDF. The PDF is the version of record; if the two differ, the PDF governs.
Medical tourism, including in the fields of prosthetic and maxillofacial dentistry, is a rapidly developing segment of the global healthcare industry. With the development of new technologies, such as 3D printing and dental implants, increasing numbers of patients are traveling abroad for dental treatment. This study demonstrates the complex legal consequences of medical errors in prosthetic dental treatment and clarifies the subtleties of professional fault according to the principles of law, and highlights the dual ergonomic and aesthetic aspects of prosthetic dentistry that differentiate it from direct therapeutic interventions and complicate both demonstration of harm and attribution of responsibility. It addresses the principles of private international law governing conflicts of law, and clarifies how the applicable law is determined when dentist and patient are from different countries, or when treatment has occurred abroad. It also provides a comparison of international regulations and legislation protecting patient rights, such the Oviedo Convention and the World Health Organization Declaration, and exposes the lack, in national laws, of any specific rules governing dental medical liability. The study concludes by stressing the need to increase dentists' understanding of the law, create new ways, such as mediation and arbitration, to settle disputes, and create a unified, global legal framework for medical responsibility in prosthetic dentistry.
Keywords: Consumer Protection, International Law, Internationality, Jurisprudence, Legislation as Topic, Medical Liability, Patient Rights, Patient Safety, Prosthodontics
As prosthetic dentistry continues to improve and new procedures and therapies are developed, a number of legal challenges have arisen around the issue of responsibility for medical malpractice in this specialised sector. Disagreements over pros- thetic errors, whether the resulting impairment is aesthetic or functional, are a hot topic between pa- tients and dentists, particularly with regard to who is at fault and the amount that should be compen- sated [1]. When an international dimension arises, such as treatment received abroad, this issue is fur- ther complicated [2]. Medical liability is the legal responsibility of a doc- tor or other healthcare practitioner for a job poorly executed that has caused harm to the patient [3]. Such responsibility is usually based on the three main tenets of civil liability: blame, harm, and cau- sation. It refers to the practitioner’s legal obligation to compensate the patient for harm resulting from a breach of technical, moral, or professional duties [4]. The extent of culpability varies by legal system (civil, criminal, or disciplinary) and by medical specialisation, particularly in fields that involve complex technological aspects, such as prosthetic dentistry [5]. Certain other aspects of this field, in- cluding its dual therapeutic and aesthetic focus, also set it apart from a legal standpoint. This adds complexity to the dentist's job, as patients have higher expectations: the aim is not just to restore oral functions such as eating and speaking, but also to achieve cosmetic outcomes [6]. Reliance on new technologies and materials, such as 3D printing and dental implants made from tita- nium or zirconia, increases the risk of complica- tions caused by errors and treatment failures [7]. These risks are further compounded because, un- like other disciplines in which the interaction be- tween practitioner and patient may involve just a single procedure, the therapeutic relationship be- tween dentist and patient might last far longer, to
include treatment, maintenance, and modifications. The standards of legal liability thus become more nuanced in cosmetic and prosthetic practice, where both functional and aesthetic expectations must be met [8]. Whether or not the patient is aware of it, a contract exists between themselves and their prosthodontist. Dentists are obliged to provide care, but not to guarantee results. Nonetheless, if a dentist has made a clear promise, particularly with regard to cosmetic outcomes, they may be obliged to fulfil this. French civil law recognises two categories of professional obligation: the obligation of means and the obligation of results. Thus, if a patient is promised a specific result, the provider may be ac- countable. Furthermore, failure to reveal risks and possible complications is illegal and may result in civil liability [9]. The legal relationship between doctor and patient is based on informed consent, for which three cru- cial requirements must be met: the patient under- goes the work voluntarily; the patient is informed of and understands all of the facts related to the pro- cedure; and the patient has the mental capacity to make the treatment decision [10]. The World Medical Association's Declaration of Helsinki states: "Medical intervention may not be done without the patient's informed consent, which means the patient fully understands the therapy and its risks" [11]. Article L1111-2 of the French Public Health Code states: "The patient has the right to clear and understandable information before any medical procedure, and consent must be informed, prior, and explicit" [12]. Nonetheless, the question remains as to which law applies when treatment is received abroad—that of the country where the treatment took place, that of the patient's county of origin, or a mutually-agreed international framework? What are the limits of pa- tient protection under various legal systems? This study addresses the question of how international legal instruments and comparative law address prosthetic dentistry disputes while safeguarding patients' rights.
Duty of Care Breach of duty, causal link, and harm are the three elements of medical liability common to all legal systems. In the medical arena, however, and partic- ularly in prosthetic dentistry, these words carry new weight due to the complexity of the field and high patient expectations. The duty of care compels the dentist to follow scientifically accepted meth- ods while providing appropriate professional treat- ment. There is no need for a formal contract be- tween the parties; the commencement of treatment establishes a legal relationship that includes this re- sponsibility [13]. A doctor is obliged to comply with the principles of liability and to provide care that is consistent with established medical principles in his field; however, he is not obliged to guarantee a specific outcome [14]. The Egyptian Court of Cassation states: "The level of care that a careful peer in the same field would give is what defines the doctor's duty." (Ruling No. 13523 for the year 79, meeting on 10/12/2012) [15]. Breaking the Law The law is broken when a dentist does not provide the required level of care, whether due to careless- ness, being under-qualified, not following ap- proved treatment standards, or utilising incorrect instruments or materials. Some examples of breach in prosthetic dentistry include placing prostheses without adequate examination of the mouth; poor instrument hygiene (which carries the risk of com- plications); or using a technique that is not scientif- ically proven. Breach occurs when a doctor acts in a way that differs from the way another, similarly qualified, doctor would have acted in the same sit- uation [16]. Causal Link It must be demonstrated that the provider’s breach of duty was the direct or most likely cause of the harm suffered by the patient. This can be very dif- ficult to prove, particularly when the damage might
have been caused by other factors, such as an aller- gic reaction to a substance, or poor patient compli- ance post-procedure. French law states that the link between cause and poor outcome must be "clear and directly relevant", while in American law, the “preponderance of evidence” test is employed, whereby the evidence must demonstrate the proba- bility that the breach caused the injury [17]. Damage Damage is the suffering incurred by the patient as a result of a medical error. This may include phys- ical injury, including loss of ability to eat or perma- nent facial disfigurement, or psychological dam- age, such as emotional suffering or social shame due to prosthetic failure. Aesthetic harm is a signif- icant element of disputes in prosthetic dentistry. The harm must be: real (not merely potential), di- rect, and legally relevant. In one example, the Paris Court of Appeal found a dentist liable for a faulty denture that permanently altered a patient's face, despite the dentist having followed all the rules, be- cause the dentist had not explained the risks to the patient [18].
Prosthetic dentistry is associated with a distinct set of technical and legal issues that affect the extent of medical culpability and set it apart from other medical fields. This is due to the nature of treat- ment, the instruments and materials utilised, and the fact that the outcome is expected, by provider and patient, to be both therapeutic and aesthetic [19]. Dental prostheses, including dentures, bridges, crowns, and implants, among others, are artificial devices designed to replace missing teeth or tissue. By their nature, they combine medical treatment and industrial technology. Thus, is the dentist or the manufacturer responsible for a design flaw? Is a material failure a medical error or a flaw in the product? [20]. Even if they did not make the device, the dentist may still be responsible if they did not adequately check the quality of the materials or inform the pa- tient about other options. Furthermore, problems
with prosthetics are not always immediately evi- dent; they may take months or even years to appear, making it harder to establish when they occurred and who is to blame [21]. It can be difficult to demonstrate harm or treatment failure when the damage is indirect or not immedi- ately evident. The patient could be unhappy for cosmetic reasons, due to pain that cannot be demonstrated via X-ray or other tests, or due to de- vice failure caused by factors beyond his/her con- trol, such as poor bone quality and/or inadequate after care [22]. This begs the question as to whether failure to achieve a predicted outcome constitutes a medical error. Is it the patient or the dentist who must prove their case? Because of the delicate nature of pros- thetic work, evidence of damage in this field is of- ten provided via expert reports and independent professional testimonies [23]. New technologies, including 3D printed tools, dig- ital jaw scanning, and AI-tailored treatments, are changing the way dentists work, while also raising novel legal questions: Who is responsible for errors in a digital design? Is the dentist accountable for software failure? Should the patient be informed about a technology’s limitations? [24]. The European Medical Devices Regulation (EU MDR) states: "The dentist must make sure that the devices made for each patient meet safety and qual- ity standards, even if they were made by someone else" (Article 745 of the EU). Thus, if treatment fails for technological reasons, both dentist and manufacturer may be responsible—as well as, pos- sibly, the software supplier [25].
One of the most important, but difficult, legal challenges when medical disputes transcend national borders is establishing which law applies. This is particularly true in an age when medical tourism and cross-border treatment have become increasingly common, and more patients are receiving prosthetic dental care in countries other than their own. A conflict of laws exists when a medical dispute involves more than one
jurisdictional connection, such as when patient and doctor are from different countries, when treatment occurs in one country but damage occurs in another, or when the medical contract is carried out in parts across more than one country [26]. In such situations, which law applies—the law where treatment was received, the law of the patient's home country, or legislation agreed upon by both parties in the treatment contract? [26]. When a legal relationship is connected to the laws of more than one state, choice-of-law rules must be applied to determine which law applies. Common connecting factors include lex loci delicti (the law of the place where the damage occurred), lex na- tionalis (law of the party’s nationality), lex domi- cilii (law of the party’s residence), and lex locus contractus (the law of the place where the contract was formed) [27, 2]. Some legal systems and courts use the "most fa- vourable law" approach, particularly in medical matters, whereby they apply the law that gives most legal protection to the weaker party (the patient). This approach is based on humanitarian principles that protect patients and consumers, uphold the right of the injured party to fair justice and redress, and inform the state's responsibility to protect pub- lic health [28]. The French Court of Cassation states: "A foreign law chosen may be thrown out if it goes against the patient's basic rights or French public policy." This concept is flexible, but is not always supported by law. It is usually only applied when there is a con- flict between a choice-of-law norm and public pol- icy ideals [29]. Most national laws and international treaties allow the parties to mutually agree, ahead of time, the law that will govern the treatment contract, provided the decision is clear and unequivocal, does not con- travene public policy, and does not harm any party, particularly the patient. According to Article 3 of the Rome I Regulation, "The people who sign a contract can choose the law that will apply to all or part of it." (Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No. 593/2008). While this provides some legal cer- tainty, some states may also enforce restrictions to
protect the weaker side, which is usually the patient [30]. As increasing numbers of patients look abroad for high-quality, economical dental procedures such as implantology, cosmetic restorations, and maxillo- facial rehabilitation, the resulting, transjurisdic- tional, contractual relationships raise novel legal and ethical challenges related to patient rights, pro- fessional obligation, and standards of liability in different geographical jurisdictions. In Europe, Directive 2011/24/EU (Patients’ Rights in Cross-Border Healthcare) lays down the legal basis for the reimbursement of patients by their home systems for health care received in other EU states. It supports transparency, adequate provision of information, and quality control, instilling a sense of security for patients seeking treatment abroad. However, it does not establish pan-Euro- pean criteria for medical malpractice liability; na- tional laws would still prevail when establishing negligence or malpractice [31]. The Rome II Regulation (Reg. 864/2007) addresses non-contractual obligations and determines which country's law applies when harm occurs in the set- ting of cross-border healthcare—usually that of the nation where the harm was incurred. This implies that a patient who receives dental treatment in one EU nation but lives in another must frequently use the tort law of the country of treatment when mak- ing a malpractice claim. This can increase the dif- ficulty of getting redress or compensation, due to variances in regulations governing processes, standards for evidence, and compensation amounts [32]. The Brussels I Recast Regulation (Reg. 1215/2012) clarifies the regulations as to where a patient may sue or be sued in civil or business proceedings. It stipulates that, in the context of medical tourism, parties may sue either in the nation where the provider is located or in their own home state, but only under specified circumstances. This serves to safeguard patients receiving treatment abroad, whilst emphasising the need for providers to uphold ethical and professional standards [33].
The Services Directive (2006/123/EC) and the Professional Qualifications Directive (2005/36/EC as amended) are also relevant to medical tourism, albeit indirectly. They guarantee that providers working in EU countries are proficient and that their qualifications are internationally recognised. This obliges practitioners in the field of dental and prosthetic tourism to maintain the educational and professional requirements necessary to provide safe and proficient treatment to all patients [34]. National tort and medical malpractice laws are also relevant, with individual EU member states setting their own rules regarding professional negligence, statutes of limitation and compensatory limits, as well as criteria for expert evidence. These differ- ences in national systems may leave both patients and doctors unsure of what to expect in the event of legal proceedings. For example, a maxillofacial prosthodontist treating international patients may encounter insurance regulations and liability limits vastly different from those of their home nation [35]. Another pertinent legal question arising from the increase in medical tourism is whether a foreign pa- tient enjoys the same legal standing as a citizen, and to what extent the patient is aware of their rights under foreign laws [36,37]. Lunt & Mannion note: “Medical tourism gives rise to transnational medical disputes in the absence of clear legislation defining the legal duties and rights of foreign patients. In the absence of comprehen- sive international agreements, these disputes are left to national courts, leading to inconsistent and unpredictable outcomes ” [38]. As lawsuits are generally filed in the country where the harm occurred, international patients can face serious practical obstacles, including cultural and language barriers; high litigation costs; and a poor grasp of their legal rights [39]. To address this, some countries have recently established medical arbitration systems to ensure faster, more professional resolution of disputes while upholding the principles of confidentiality. Nonetheless, arbitration remains optional and non-binding in
many jurisdictions, and access for foreign patients is still limited [40]. Mediation is generally the more affordable and am- icable option, but relies on the consent of both par- ties. Moreover, it is often unsuitable for cases in- volving severe harm or large compensation claims. The Council of Europe (2020) notes: “Alternative dispute resolution mechanisms in medical disputes represent a positive step, but they still lack unified legislative frameworks at the European level” [41]. In the absence of a comprehensive international treaty, some countries have enacted domestic laws to regulate the responsibility of healthcare provid- ers with regard to foreign patients. Examples in- clude:
France: Allows foreign patients to sue healthcare providers before French courts, treating them equally to citizens, subject to public order provi- sions [42]. United Arab Emirates: Requires private healthcare institutions to offer professional liabil- ity insurance for physicians and compensation for patients in the event of injury [43]. Iraq: Article 27 of Iraqi Civil Code No. 40 of 1951 establishes the principle that “non-contrac- tual obligations are subject to the law of the state in which the event creating the obligation oc- curred.” Accordingly, the Iraqi legislator has de- termined that liability arising from medical error is governed by the law of the state in which the error took place. The second paragraph of Article 27 states the following: “However, the provisions of the previous paragraph regarding obligations arising from an unlawful act shall not apply to events that occur abroad and are lawful in Iraq, even if they are unlawful in the country in which they occurred” [44]. This legal gap can result in injustice for patients or excessive protection for practitioners without proper accountability.
The last several decades has seen an increase in global initiatives to protect patients' rights. This is
especially relevant with the globalisation of healthcare and the resulting rise in medical con- flicts, including those around prosthetic dentistry. Different groups and professional organisations worldwide have published guidelines and protocols setting global standards for both patients' rights and doctors’ legal obligations [45]. Some of the most important standards include:
• The Declaration on the Rights of the Patient, by the WHO and a number of countries, which lays out a basic set of patient rights to be fol- lowed by all healthcare systems. These include the right to clear and complete information concerning treatment, the right to provide in- formed consent, the right to privacy and confi- dentiality, the right to refuse treatment, and the right to file a complaint or seek legal action against a doctor or institution [46].
• The WHO Patients’ Rights Framework (WHO, 2004) which states: “Policies about health care should be made to protect patients from carelessness and make it clear who is re- sponsible.” While not legally binding, this is generally perceived as a moral and legal guide- line and has influenced legislation in numerous nations [47].
• The Oviedo Convention, signed in 1997, and the first international treaty to make human rights in medicine and biology legally binding. It was issued by the Council of Europe and is binding on the (mostly Western European) sig- natory states. Some of its key principles in- clude respect for the dignity of all persons in- volved in healthcare activities, no treatment without free and informed consent, as well as the right of patients to access their medical rec- ords. According to Article 5, “Without the per- son's free and informed consent, no interven- tion in the health field can take place”. The Convention also addresses biological and med- ical advances such as organ transplant and gene therapy, stipulating that legal action may be taken against healthcare professionals who violate patients’ rights [48]. Non-signatory
countries may also refer to this Convention as a model for patient protection laws [47].
For dentists in particular, the Fédération Dentaire Internationale (FDI) has established a Code of Eth- ics that includes both legal and ethical rules to be followed by all of its members. These include re- spect for patients, provision of adequate infor- mation, ensuring informed consent and privacy, competent use of tools and techniques, and avoid- ing assurances that cannot be guaranteed [48]. According to the FDI Code of Ethics (2018), "A dentist must not do anything that puts the patient at risk or damages the public's trust in dentistry." These principles are not binding; nonetheless, they serve as criteria in assessing professional conduct and legal responsibility [48].
From a medico-legal standpoint, the dual therapeu- tic and aesthetic goals of prosthetic dentistry com- plicate the attribution of liability and necessitate fully informed consent. The four elements of med- ical malpractice are the physician’s duty to the pa- tient; breach of that duty; causation between breach and injury; and damages. Of these, causation is of- ten difficult to prove in dental prosthetics cases; most national laws do not provide clear regulations for the attribution of responsibility in this field, in- stead providing only vague, general rules. Regard- ing cross-border disputes, the various national sys- tems follow different approaches under private in- ternational law to determine which law applies. Thus, patient safety remains a challenging element of medical tourism. In the absence of an interna- tional treaty mandating cross-border medical ac- countability for signatory states, protection cur- rently depends on soft law instruments such as the WHO declarations and the Oviedo Convention. Re- search is limited in this area due to the lack of uni- form national and international legislation govern- ing the practice of dental prosthetics. The laws of most jurisdictions do not specifically consider the dual medical and cosmetic nature of prosthetics, in- stead relying on general medical malpractice or consumer protection laws. Additionally, the multi-
disciplinary aspect of this field, combining both clinical and technological expertise, adds to the dif- ficulty in determining professional responsibility and establishing causation in malpractice cases. Furthermore, accurate comparison of the various legal systems is not possible, due to the varying le- gal interpretations of duty, breach, causation, and harm between different jurisdictions. Based on our findings, it would be reasonable for future studies to explore integrated legal frameworks and interna- tionally comparative models that could enhance global patient protection and professional account- ability.
VII. REFERENCES 1. Zinman E. Dental and legal considerations in periodontal therapy. Periodontol 2000 . 2001;25(1):114-30. 2. Helble M. The movement of patients across borders: challenges and opportunities for public health. Bull World Health Organ. 2011;89:68-72. 3. Pițuru S, Vlădăreanu S, Păun S, Nanu A. Malpractice and professional liability of medical personnel. Farmacia . 2015;63(2):318-24. 4. Shaver KG. The attribution of blame: cau- sality, responsibility, and blameworthiness. New York: Springer; 2012. 5. Kennedy I. Principles of medical law. Ox- ford: Oxford University Press; 2010. 6. Dawood A. Patient expectations in implant and aesthetic dentistry. Br Dent J . 2025;238(10):770-6. 7. Bunyan SF, Shakir SM, Zardawi FMM. Color stability and roughness of ocular prosthesis between heat ‐ cured acrylic and 3D printed acrylic after artificial weather- ing. Int J Dent . 2025;2025(1):6674943. 8. Corte-Real A, Caetano C, Alves S, Pereira AD, Rocha S, Vieira DN. Patient safety in dental practice: lessons to learn about the risks and limits of professional liability. Int Dent J. 2021;71(5):378-83.
9. Graskemper JP. Professional responsibility in dentistry: a practical guide to law and ethics . Hoboken (NJ): NWiley; 2023. 10. Pallocci M, Treglia M, Passalacqua P, Tit- tarelli R, Zanovello C, De Luca L, et al. In- formed consent: legal obligation or corner- stone of the care relationship? Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023;20(3):2118. 11. Kurihara C, Inoue K, Kai H, Suzuki K, Saeki H, Funabashi Y, et al. Our “WMA Declaration of Helsinki”: opinions and pro- posals from patient and public for research ethics. In: Ethical innovation for global health. Singapore: Springer ; 2023. p. 243- 69. 12. Vansweevelt T. Informed consent in Bel- gium and France. In: Informed consent and health . Cheltenham (UK): Edward Elgar Publishing; 2020. p.124-43. 13. Hamasaki T, Hagihara A. Dentists’ legal li- ability and duty of explanation in dental malpractice litigation in Japan. Int Dent J . 2021;71(4):300-8. 14. Heimer CA. Responsibility in health care: spanning the boundary between law and medicine. Wake For L Rev . 2006;41:465. 15. Soleimani AM, Hakim M, Khazaei S. A comparative study of the civil responsibil- ity of the doctor in the legal system of Iran and Egypt. Sociol Cult Stud . 2025;16(1). 16. King J, Bridgman A, Seward M, Singh A, Gibbons DE, Waldron G, et al. In: Lamb- den P, editor. Dental law and ethics. Ox- ford: Radcliffe Med Press; 2002. 17. Dhawan R, Dhawan S. Legal aspects in dentistry. J Indian Soc Periodontol . 2010;14(1):81-4. 18. Mazevet M, Tubert-Jeannin S, Doméjean S. Inadequacies between evidence-based den- tistry, health policies, public funding and clinical practice: the case of cariology in a French context. Fr J Dent Med . 2020:1-8. 19. Bunyan SF, Suhaimi FM, Zardawi FM, Noor SNFM, Zabidi MA. Nanoparticles in
enhancing mechanical properties of sili- cone for maxillofacial rehabilitation – a re- view. J Evol Med Dent Sci . 2023:280-5. 20. Montagna F, Manfredini D, Nuzzolese E. Professional liability and structure of litiga- tion in dentistry. Minerva Stomatol. 2008:354-7. 21. Amaral JM, Caldas IM. Professional liabil- ity and litigation in dental medicine: an analysis of the Portuguese context. J Foren- sic Odonto-stomatol . 2025;42(3):53. 22. Franjić S. Damage in dentistry. J Health Care Res . 2021;2(3):146. 23. Rovida TAS, Dias IDA, Garbin CAS, Garbin AJI. Evaluation of injury cases for dental intervention described in legal den- tistry reports. Int J Odontostomat . 2015;9(3):533-9. 24. Pinchi V. International overview on dental damage compensation. In: Personal injury and damage ascertainment under civil law: State-of-the-art international guidelines . 2016. p.507-21. 25. Svempe L. Exploring impediments im- posed by the Medical Device Regulation EU 2017/745 on software as a medical de- vice. JMIR Med Inform. 2024;12(1):e58080. 26. Kassim PNJ. Medicine beyond borders: the legal and ethical challenges. Med Law . 2009;28:439. 27. Cortez N. Recalibrating the legal risks of cross-border health care. Yale J Health Pol- icy Law Ethics. 2010;10:1. 28. Violato C. Doctor-patient relationships, laws, clinical guidelines, best practices, ev- idence-based medicine, medical errors and patient safety. Can Med Educ J. 2013;4(1):e1. 29. Sirena P. The concepts of “harm” in the French and Italian laws of civil liability. In: French civil liability in comparative perspective . Oxford: Hart Publ; 2019. p.205-21.
30. Quinn P, De Hert P. The Patients’ Rights Directive (2011/24/EU) – providing (some) rights to EU residents seeking healthcare in other Member States. Comput Law Secur Rev . 2011;27(5):497-502. 31. European Union. Directive 2011/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on the application of patients’ rights in cross-border healthcare. Off J Eur Union. 2011 Apr 4;L88. Available from: http://eurlex. europa. eu/LexUriServ/Lex- UriServ. do . 32. Kramer XE. The Rome II Regulation on the law applicable to non-contractual obliga- tions: the European private international law tradition continued—introductory ob- servations, scope, system, and general rules. Ned Int Privaatrecht (NIPR). 2008; (4):414-424. 33. Beaumont P, Walker L. Recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and com- mercial matters in the Brussels I Recast and some lessons from it and the recent Hague Conventions for the Hague Judgments Pro- ject. Journal of Private International Law. 2015;11 (1):31-63. 34. European Parliament and Council of the European Union. Directive 2006/123/EC on services in the internal market. Off J Eur Union. 2006 Dec 27;L376. 35. Tsagka SM. (2022). The Professional Qualifications Directive. An, as yet, incom- plete attempt to fully operationalize the principle of mutual recognition (Doctoral dissertation, University of Surrey). 36. Ancy RJ, Shenoy RP, Jodalli PS, Pasha IM. Benefits of medical and dental tourism – a review. J Dent Med Sci. 2020;19(3):26-31. 37. Cohen IG. Patients with passports: medical tourism, law and ethics. Oxford: Oxford Univ Press; 2015. 38. Lunt N. Medical tourism: treatments, markets and health system implications: a scoping review, OECD Health Working Papers. 2011.
39. Kopelman LM. The best interests standard for incompetent or incapacitated persons of all ages. J Law Med Ethics. 2007;35(1):187-96. 40. Kuzmenkov VA. Medical arbitration tribu- nal: current state and prospects. Sociol Med . 2024;23(2):204-13. 41. Raposo VL. I (won’t) see you in court: al- ternative dispute resolution for medical lia- bility conflicts: examples from Europe. Eur Rev Priv Law . 2020;28(6). 42. Duguet AM. Medical law in France . Ency- clopedia of Global Bioethics. Cham: Springer Nature. 2023. 43. Alnakhi WK, Segal JB, Frick KD, Hussin A, Ahmed S, Morlock L. Treatment desti- nations and visit frequencies for patients seeking medical treatment overseas from the UAE: results from Dubai Health Au- thority reporting during 2009–2016. Trop Dis Travel Med Vaccines . 2019;5:1-10. 44. Jafar MH. Iraqi Civil Code No.(40) of 1951 in light of the foundations on which it is based (a comparative study). J Misan Comp Legal Stud. 2022;1(7). 45. Marsden J. Keeping patients safe: a practi- cal guide. Community Eye Health. 2015;28(90):23. 46. World Health Organization. Global patient safety action plan 2021-2030: towards eliminating avoidable harm in health care. Geneva: WHO; 2021. 47. Ten Have H, Patrão Neves MDC. Oviedo Convention (See also Council of Europe). In: Dictionary of global bioethics . Cham: Springer; 2021. p.49. 48. Ahonen H, Pakpour A, Norderyd O, Broström A, Fransson EI, Lindmark U. Ap- plying world dental federation theoretical framework for oral health in a general pop- ulation. Int Dent J. 2022;72(4):536-44.