Introduction: In crimes committed by a doctor, the identification of the responsible agent and, consequently enforcing criminal liability has always been associated with challenges and difficulties. In this regard, sometimes competent authorities issue contradictory opinions which are investigated in the present study.
Methods: In this retrospective cross-sectional analytical study, 116 cases were investigated in the Fars Forensic Medicine Commission from 2010 to 2019 in terms of responsibility type and establishment of a causal relationship. The method of data collection was through a questionnaire, including 15 questions, and after collecting information, they were analyzed employing SPSS21 software. .
Results: In terms of responsibility type, 53 cases (46%) were directly responsible, and in 19 cases (16%) the causes or means was recognized as responsible. In the remaining 42 cases (38%) both causes were jointly responsible with the procurator.
Conclusion: Most negligence was of the compound type which was relevant to more than one factor. In order to investigate the cause of the crime and diagnose the guarantor, the forensic commission did not follow the basis of the unit.