Zeynep Elibol’a, 5’inci \u00e7ocu\u011funa hamileyken 2024 y\u0131l\u0131nda 4’\u00fcnc\u00fc evre kanser te\u015fhisi konuldu. Hamilelik s\u00fcrecinde baz\u0131 tetkikleri yap\u0131lamad\u0131\u011f\u0131 i\u00e7in ge\u00e7 te\u015fhis konulan Elibol’un tedavisi, do\u011fumun ard\u0131ndan ba\u015flad\u0131. Elibol, yakla\u015f\u0131k 1 y\u0131l uygulanan kemoterapi ve ak\u0131ll\u0131 ila\u00e7 tedavisinden sonu\u00e7 alamad\u0131. Bunun \u00fczerine doktorlar taraf\u0131ndan ‘trastuzumab deruxtecan’ etken maddeli ila\u00e7 \u00f6nerildi. Elibol, 33 bin 547 TL olan ilac\u0131n kar\u015f\u0131lanmas\u0131 i\u00e7in SGK’ya ba\u015fvurdu. Ancak SGK, ila\u00e7 geri \u00f6deme listesinde bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle ret karar\u0131 verdi. Elibol, Ankara 3’\u00fcnc\u00fc \u0130\u015f Mahkemesi’nde SGK’n\u0131n i\u015fleminin iptali ve ilac\u0131n bedelinin kar\u015f\u0131lanmas\u0131 talebiyle dava a\u00e7arak, ihtiyati tedbir talebinde bulundu. Mahkeme, davac\u0131n\u0131n tedavisi i\u00e7in elzem oldu\u011fu iddia edilen ilac\u0131n tedarikinde gecikme olmas\u0131 halinde telafisi g\u00fc\u00e7 zararlar ya\u015fanabilece\u011fi gerek\u00e7esiyle dava s\u00fcrecinde ilac\u0131n SGK taraf\u0131ndan kar\u015f\u0131lanmas\u0131 i\u00e7in 5 Haziran 2025’te ihtiyati tedbir karar\u0131 verdi.<\/p>\n
B\u0130L\u0130RK\u0130\u015e\u0130 RAPORU GEREK\u00c7E G\u00d6STER\u0130LD\u0130<\/strong><\/p>\n Mahkemenin karar\u0131 ile Elibol, ilac\u0131 kullanmaya ba\u015flad\u0131. Ancak mahkeme 6 Kas\u0131m 2025’teki karar\u0131nda davan\u0131n reddine karar verdi. Kararda bilirki\u015fi kurulunun raporu gerek\u00e7e g\u00f6sterildi. Gerek\u00e7eli kararda bilirki\u015fi kurulunun 10 A\u011fustos 2025 tarihli raporunda; ‘davac\u0131n\u0131n durumundaki hastalar i\u00e7in dava konusu ila\u00e7 da dahil olmak \u00fczere herhangi bir tedavi ile kanserde tamamen iyile\u015fme sa\u011flamak m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, bu grup hastalar i\u00e7in verilen tedavilerin amac\u0131n\u0131n hastalar\u0131n ya\u015fam s\u00fcresini uzatmak ve ya\u015fam kalitesini korumak oldu\u011fu, davac\u0131n\u0131n herhangi bir tedavi y\u00f6ntemi ile tamamen sa\u011fl\u0131\u011f\u0131na kavu\u015fmas\u0131, tamamen iyile\u015fmesinin m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, ancak dava konusu ilac\u0131n sa\u011f kal\u0131m katk\u0131s\u0131 g\u00f6sterdi\u011fi, ilac\u0131n muadilinin bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131’ \u015feklinde g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f bildirildi\u011fi belirtilerek, “S\u00f6z konusu ilac\u0131n kullan\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n zorunlu olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, hayati \u00f6neme haiz olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, faz \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmalar\u0131n\u0131n da tamamlanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan davac\u0131n\u0131n davas\u0131n\u0131n reddi cihetine gidilmi\u015ftir” denildi.<\/p>\n Zeynep Elibol, avukat\u0131 arac\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131yla karar\u0131 istinafa ta\u015f\u0131rken, SGK da bor\u00e7 bildirim belgesi g\u00f6nderdi. Zeynep Elibol\u2019un e\u015fi Veysel Elibol\u2019a g\u00f6nderilen bor\u00e7 bildirim belgesinde dava s\u00fcrecinde kulland\u0131\u011f\u0131 ilac\u0131n bedeli olan 805 bin 130 TL geri talep edildi.<\/p>\n ‘MAHKEME SONUCUNDA \u0130LACIM KES\u0130LD\u0130’<\/strong><\/p>\n Zeynep Elibol, hamileli\u011finde bir\u00e7ok test yap\u0131lamad\u0131\u011f\u0131 i\u00e7in te\u015fhisin hamileli\u011finin 6’nc\u0131 ay\u0131nda konuldu\u011funu s\u00f6yleyerek, “Erken do\u011fum karar\u0131 al\u0131nd\u0131. Bebe\u011fim 2 ay yo\u011fun bak\u0131mda kald\u0131. Sonra tedavim ba\u015flad\u0131. Devletin kar\u015f\u0131lad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ila\u00e7lar\u0131n neredeyse hepsini kulland\u0131m. Yakla\u015f\u0131k 1 y\u0131l s\u00fcrd\u00fc; ama hi\u00e7birinden sonu\u00e7 al\u0131namad\u0131. Bunun \u00fczerine doktorum SGK geri \u00f6deme listesinde olmayan ilac\u0131 almam gerekti\u011fini s\u00f6yledi. Mahkeme karar\u0131yla 6 k\u00fcr o ilac\u0131 ald\u0131m. Bana \u00e7ok iyi geldi. Ancak mahkeme sonucunda ilac\u0131m kesildi. Biz de bu karar\u0131 istinafa ta\u015f\u0131d\u0131k. \u0130lac\u0131m hayati \u00f6nem ta\u015f\u0131yor. \u00d6zellikle 4\u2019\u00fcnc\u00fc evre hastalar i\u00e7in bu ila\u00e7 \u00e7ok \u00f6nemli. \u0130la\u00e7 kullan\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131nda metastaz riski \u00e7ok y\u00fcksek. \u015eu an ana bor\u00e7 806 bin liray\u0131 a\u015ft\u0131. Her ay yakla\u015f\u0131k 53 bin lira faiz ekleniyor. \u00d6desek bile bor\u00e7 bitmeyecek gibi. Bu durum bizi hem maddi hem manevi olarak \u00e7ok y\u0131prat\u0131yor\u201d diye konu\u015ftu.<\/p>\n ‘DAVA KES\u0130NLE\u015eMEDEN BOR\u00c7 TAHUKKUK ETT\u0130R\u0130LD\u0130’<\/strong><\/p>\n Elibol’in avukat\u0131 Berkay \u00d6zdemir, bilirki\u015fi raporunda ilac\u0131n sa\u011f kal\u0131ma ciddi katk\u0131 sundu\u011fu, muadilinin olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve kullan\u0131lmamas\u0131 halinde ani hayat kalitesi d\u00fc\u015f\u00fc\u015f\u00fc ya da \u00f6l\u00fcm riskinin bulundu\u011funun a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a yer ald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirtti. Mahkemenin buna ra\u011fmen bilirki\u015fi raporunda yer alan ‘dava konusu ila\u00e7 dahil herhangi bir tedavi ile kanserde tamamen iyile\u015fme sa\u011flamak m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131’ g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fc dikkate al\u0131p, davan\u0131n reddine karar verdi\u011fini s\u00f6yleyen \u00d6zdemir, “Bu kararla birlikte SGK\u2019n\u0131n o g\u00fcne kadar \u00f6dedi\u011fi ila\u00e7 bedelleri hastadan geri istenebilir hale geldi. Biz de hem bu geri istemenin \u00f6n\u00fcne ge\u00e7mek hem de karar\u0131n kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in dosyay\u0131 istinafa ta\u015f\u0131d\u0131k. \u015eu an dava B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi\u2019nde inceleme s\u0131ras\u0131 bekliyor. SGK, karar kesinle\u015fmeden bor\u00e7 tahakkuk ettirdi ve tahsilat s\u00fcrecini ba\u015flatt\u0131. Bug\u00fcne kadar \u00f6denen ila\u00e7 bedelleri faiziyle hastadan ya da sigortal\u0131s\u0131ndan geri isteniyor. \u00d6denmedi\u011fi takdirde haciz yoluna gidiliyor. \u0130htiyati tedbir karar\u0131yla m\u00fcvekkil bir s\u00fcre ilac\u0131n\u0131 \u00fccretsiz kullanabildi. Ancak dava kaybedilince t\u00fcm bedeller faiziyle geri istendi. M\u00fcvekkilin bunu \u00f6deyecek ekonomik durumu yok. B\u00fcy\u00fck ihtimalle SGK bu borcu haciz yoluyla tahsil edecek” diye konu\u015ftu.<\/p>\n ‘\u0130LA\u00c7 \u0130LK G\u00dcN DE ELZEMD\u0130, SON G\u00dcN DE ELZEM’<\/strong><\/p>\n Karar\u0131n vicdani y\u00f6n\u00fcne dikkat \u00e7eken \u00d6zdemir, “Mahkeme ba\u015fta aciliyet oldu\u011funu g\u00f6rd\u00fc. Ne de\u011fi\u015fti de g\u00fcn\u00fcn sonunda dava reddedildi? Asl\u0131nda hi\u00e7bir \u015fey de\u011fi\u015fmedi. \u0130la\u00e7 davan\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00fcn de elzemdi, bitti\u011fi g\u00fcn de elzemdi. Bilirki\u015fi raporu da bunu a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a ortaya koydu. Baz\u0131 mahkemeler ‘ya\u015fam hakk\u0131’ diyerek davalar\u0131 kabul ediyor, baz\u0131lar\u0131 ise Yarg\u0131tay karar\u0131n\u0131 gerek\u00e7e g\u00f6stererek reddediyor. Emsal kararlar ba\u011flay\u0131c\u0131 olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 i\u00e7in her hasta ayr\u0131 ayr\u0131 dava a\u00e7mak zorunda kal\u0131yor. SGK bu davalar nedeniyle ciddi vekalet \u00fccretleri ve bilirki\u015fi masraflar\u0131 \u00f6d\u00fcyor. Bu kaynaklar\u0131 dava yerine ila\u00e7lar\u0131 geri \u00f6deme kapsam\u0131na almak i\u00e7in kullanmal\u0131. \u015eu an T\u00fcrkiye genelinde bu t\u00fcr ila\u00e7lar i\u00e7in yakla\u015f\u0131k 15 bin dava var. Bu davalar\u0131n \u00e7o\u011fu kazan\u0131lacak ve SGK\u2019n\u0131n b\u00fct\u00e7esi daha fazla zorlanacak” ifadelerini kulland\u0131. (DHA)<\/p>\n\n <\/p>\n Kaynak :\u00a0http:\/\/www.milliyet.com.tr\/ekonomi\/mahkemeden-kanser-ilaci-icin-once-tedbir-sonra-ret-karari-7519685<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Ankara’da mahkeme, meme kanseri hastas\u0131 Zeynep Elibol’un (33), tedavide kullanmas\u0131 gereken 33 bin TL’lik ilac\u0131n \u00f6nce Sosyal G\u00fcvenlik Kurumu (SGK) taraf\u0131ndan kar\u015f\u0131lanmas\u0131 i\u00e7in verdi\u011fi ihtiyati tedbir karar\u0131n\u0131, daha sonra bilirki\u015fi raporunu gerek\u00e7e g\u00f6stererek kald\u0131r\u0131p, davan\u0131n reddine karar verdi. SGK da dava s\u00fcrecinde Elibol’un kulland\u0131\u011f\u0131 ilac\u0131n paras\u0131n\u0131 geri istedi.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":166896,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[1406,4582,581,446,252],"class_list":["post-166895","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-ekonomi","tag-dava","tag-ilac","tag-karari","tag-mahkeme","tag-sgk"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/kamucalisani.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/166895","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/kamucalisani.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/kamucalisani.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kamucalisani.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kamucalisani.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=166895"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/kamucalisani.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/166895\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":166897,"href":"https:\/\/kamucalisani.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/166895\/revisions\/166897"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kamucalisani.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/166896"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/kamucalisani.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=166895"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kamucalisani.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=166895"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kamucalisani.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=166895"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}