If you want to pay by credit card
The fundamental statute in Turkish law regarding medical interventions and the treatment of diseases is Law No. 1219 on the Practice of Medicine and Medical Arts of 1928.
Law No. 1219 effectively grants a monopoly to physicians, dentists, and authorized healthcare professionals regarding medical interventions and any healing-oriented applications. The primary objective of these statutory provisions is not to protect the professional field of these individuals, but to safeguard public health.
Article 1 of Law No. 1219 provides:
"In order to practice medicine and treat patients in any manner whatsoever within the Republic of Türkiye, it is mandatory to hold a diploma from a faculty of medicine."
Through this provision, the statute requires an individual to hold a medical diploma to treat a patient, regardless of the method employed.
Article 3 of the Law introduces certain exceptions for other healthcare professionals while rendering diplomas and relevant specialty certificates mandatory for surgical interventions. This regulation aims to ensure that all surgical interventions—whether performed for curative purposes or otherwise—are conducted exclusively by authorized personnel.
A similar provision appears in Article 8 of the Law:
"Those who possess the qualifications specified in this Law for the practice of medicine in Türkiye generally hold the right to treat diseases. However, in order to continuously specialize in any branch of medicine and to announce that title, one must hold a specialty certificate issued by a Turkish Faculty of Medicine or by institutions accepted and announced by the Ministry of Health, or issued by a well-known hospital or laboratory in a foreign country and certified by a Turkish Faculty of Medicine."
Actions by individuals who lack the statutory qualifications for medical intervention—such as attempting surgical procedures, undertaking patient treatment, or unlawfully assuming titles such as doctor, dentist, or physiotherapist—are penalized under the misdemeanor and criminal provisions of the Law.
This article presents key statutory provisions prescribing sanctions for such conduct and similar unauthorized acts. Although various other offenses and misdemeanors regarding unauthorized medical interventions exist in current legislation, the "prohibited" acts discussed below represent the most prevalent in social life.
Although traditional and complementary medicine applications are now safely performed by certified physicians pursuant to the Regulation on Traditional and Complementary Medicine Practices and related legislation, "alternative medicine" practices remain widespread in social reality. Bonesetters, leech therapists, cupping (hacamat) practitioners, and individuals performing non-scientific, experience-based treatments operate in underground venues or even auto repair shops.
Unlicensed practitioners exploiting religious sentiments, individuals attempting to treat paralysis through "energy," and bogus doctors who have worked in hospitals for years periodically appear in public news. In the recent past, barbers in rural areas performed medical tasks such as treating patients, circumcisions, and tooth extractions. Such practices appear deeply embedded in cultural habits.
News headlines regarding these incidents include:
Soley-Called Healer Paralyzed Lumbar Hernia Patient Through Hammer and Stake Intervention [1]
Visited a Bonesetter, Ended Up Hospitalized! [2]
Woman Disabled After Walking on 90-Kg Boss's Back "For Relief" [3]
Deadly Folk Remedies: BEWARE! [4]
Folk Medicine Led to Death [5]
Folk Remedy Killed [6]
Faith Healer's Horrific Trap! [7]
Fell for Charlatan's Trap Seeking Cure for Autism! [8]
Fake Doctor Who Performed Numerous Surgeries Apprehended [9]
Fake Doctor Posing as Professor Arrested [10]
Disputes reflected in judicial precedents include:
Gangrene of an arm tied by an unlicensed bonesetter due to improper fracture treatment... [11]
An accused obtaining a forged diploma indicating graduation from Ege University Faculty of Medicine in 1995–1996, applying to work as a doctor, being appointed in 1996, and working in various posts... [12]
An accused retired operating room technician extracting ingrown toenails of a complainant presenting with foot pain... [13]
While these acts may carry heavier sanctions under general Turkish Penal Code (TCK) provisions, this article evaluates specific criminal and misdemeanor provisions under health legislation without entering the rules of joinder of offenses (suçların içtimai).
Any person who treats patients or assumes the title of physician without holding a diploma—even if not aiming to secure a financial benefit—shall be punished by imprisonment from two to five years and a judicial fine of up to one thousand days (Law No. 1219, Art. 25).
If a physician who lacks the authority to practice medicine under the provisions of this Law, or who is barred from practicing medicine for any reason whatsoever, practices their profession, an administrative fine from five hundred Turkish Liras to five thousand Turkish Liras shall be imposed (Law No. 1219, Art. 26).
Even if a person is barred from practicing medicine, so long as their diploma has not been formally revoked, an intervention performed outside a hospital or clinic does not constitute the crime under Article 25 under the principle of legality (kanunilik ilkesi). The applicable sanction is the administrative fine under Article 26.
Under Article 25, only patient treatment by individuals lacking a medical diploma is criminalized. The legislature did not classify treatment by individuals holding a diploma but barred from practice as a violation severe enough to constitute this specific offense. Under Law No. 1219, a physician's diploma can be revoked only due to mental incapacity (Art. 28).
Consequently, any individual lacking a medical diploma can be the perpetrator (fail) of this crime. As rightly noted in legal doctrine, a nurse performing a medical intervention beyond their statutory authority can also commit this offense [14].
The statute defines two alternative acts (seçimlik hareket):
Treating patients without a diploma, even without seeking financial gain.
Assuming the title of doctor without holding a diploma.
Under the principle of legality, only acts aimed at treatment—that is, healing—form the subject of this offense. Performing cosmetic fillers purely for aesthetic purposes without authority does not trigger this crime. Likewise, diagnostic examinations that do not constitute treatment do not fulfill the statutory definition.
Regarding the offense of assuming the title of doctor without a diploma, where an individual examines patients under titles such as "master" or similar terms rather than "doctor," but performs no curative act, this crime does not materialize.
In assessing whether the crime of practicing medicine without a diploma has occurred, judicial precedents place significant weight on expert witness reports (bilirkişi raporu).
In one decision, where the accused admitted to performing epilation using an IPL device at a beauty salon, the Court of Cassation reversed a acquittal judgment for incomplete investigation, holding that the trial court ought to have obtained an expert report from a dermatology specialist to determine whether the IPL device possessed laser features and whether laser epilation constituted "treating patients" [15].
In another decision, the high court held that an expert report was required to evaluate whether massage, physical therapy exercises, and cream applications performed by a non-physician on a child with MMR constituted "treating patients without a diploma" [16].
In a further ruling, the court ordered an expert report to determine whether treating lumbar hernia through bioenergy constituted an act of treatment [17].
In another precedent, a conviction was reversed for incomplete investigation because the court failed to investigate how evaluating driver's license applicants for color blindness constituted "treating patients" or "assuming the title of physician," and failed to consult the High Health Council (Sağlık Şurası) [18].
Because practices such as cupping and bioenergy are regulated under the Regulation on Traditional and Complementary Medicine Practices and must be performed by certified physicians in clinical settings, performing leech therapy (hirudotherapy), cupping, or bioenergy therapy by a non-physician fulfills the statutory elements of this offense.
The legal value protected by this offense is public health, and the victim is society as a whole [19]. An individual's property rights are also included within the protected legal interests [20].
Because public health is the protected interest, individuals who believe they can be healed through faith healing or physical force are vulnerable to exploitation. Performing an act for curative purposes causes individuals to be treated by unqualified persons and deprives them of legitimate medical care. Given that patients believe they are receiving genuine treatment while their illness progresses, requiring a medical expert report to determine whether an act constitutes "treatment" should not, in our view, be mandatory in every instance.
The statute prescribes a heavier sanction for the unlicensed practice of dentistry or opening a dental clinic than for the unauthorized practice of medicine. Prohibited acts under this provision are also drafted more broadly than under Article 25.
Even without a personal gain objective, the professional practice of individuals who perform any examination or intervention relating to dentistry, or who open a workplace relating to dental clinical services without a diploma, shall be suspended. These individuals shall be sentenced to imprisonment from three to five years and a judicial fine of up to one thousand days (Law No. 1219, Art. 41 & Supp. Art. 7; Supplementary Article 7 cross-references this penalty for dental prosthetics technicians exceeding their authority).
If a physician, dentist, or dental practitioner who lacks authority or is barred from practice under this Law practices dentistry, an administrative fine from five hundred Turkish Liras to five thousand Turkish Liras shall be imposed (Law No. 1219, Art. 42).
The legal interest protected is public health, and the victim is society as a whole [21].
The statute defines two alternative acts:
Performing any examination or intervention relating to dentistry without a diploma, with or without a financial motive.
Opening a workplace relating to dental clinical services without a diploma.
While assuming the title of doctor without a diploma constitutes a crime under Article 25, assuming the title of dentist without a diploma does not fulfill this specific offense unless accompanied by one of the statutory acts. The second alternative act consists of opening a clinic or office for dental services, regardless of the title used.
Criminalizing "any examination or intervention" aligns logically with the protected legal interest. While an examination is not a treatment, informing an ill individual that they suffer from no condition due to practitioner ignorance impairs public and individual health. Limiting this broad definition to dentistry—while requiring "treatment" for unauthorized general medical interventions under Article 25—represents a statutory asymmetry.
Judicial precedents regarding this offense illustrate its application:
The Court of Cassation affirmed a conviction where the accused received 500 TL to perform dental procedures [22].
In another decision, dental equipment and extracted teeth found in waste were admitted as evidence to convict the accused under this provision [23].
In a further ruling, the high court held that holding a master craftsmanship certificate (ustalık belgesi) did not authorize practicing as a dental prosthetics technician [24].
In Decision E. 2016/1830, K. 2017/7260, the 19th Criminal Chamber reversed a conviction, holding that where an attending dentist instructed the accused to prepare the patient, and the patient testified that the accused performed no oral intervention but merely prepared them for the doctor's examination, proof beyond reasonable doubt was lacking.
In a case involving a foreign dentist, the court reversed a conviction because the trial court failed to query the Council of Higher Education (YÖK) regarding the equivalence of a diploma issued by Al-Baath University in Syria and the defendant's right to practice dentistry in Türkiye [25].
Any person who practices midwifery as a profession without holding a diploma or certificate shall be imposed an administrative fine of two hundred fifty Turkish Liras, provided the act does not constitute a separate crime (Law No. 1219, Art. 54).
...Persons who perform a task within the authority of healthcare professionals defined in this article, or who assume these titles without holding a diploma or professional certificate, shall be punished by imprisonment from one year to three years and a judicial fine from two hundred days to five hundred days (Law No. 1219, Supp. Art. 13).
Practicing midwifery without authority is categorized as a misdemeanor, provided it does not constitute a separate offense. If delivering a child is classified as a curative treatment, the act may also trigger Article 25.
Supplementary Article 13 criminalizes performing "any task within the authority" of specified healthcare professionals (e.g., dietitians, assistant nurses, physiotherapists) or assuming their professional titles without a diploma. Under Supplementary Article 13, performing any task within the statutory job description of a dietitian or physiotherapist without authorization fulfills the offense, regardless of whether the act constitutes "treatment."
Except for emergency healthcare services provided during extraordinary situations by persons authorized to practice until emergency care arrives and continuity is established, persons who provide healthcare services without a license or cause healthcare services to be provided by unauthorized persons shall be punished by imprisonment from one year to three years and a judicial fine of up to twenty thousand days. Healthcare institutions operating special permit units without Ministry of Health authorization shall be penalized with an administrative fine of up to half of the gross service income of the preceding month (Fundamental Law on Healthcare Services No. 3359, Supp. Art. 11).
Emergency interventions by authorized professionals during extraordinary circumstances are excluded from unlawfulness under this provision.
Outside emergency situations, providing unlicensed healthcare services or causing unauthorized persons to deliver medical care triggers imprisonment from one to three years and substantial fines.
Legal doctrine cites assigning medical interns to emergency weekend shifts at private hospitals as an example of this offense [26].
Two alternative acts exist: providing unlicensed healthcare services directly, or employing/directing an unauthorized individual to deliver such services.
While Articles 25 and 41 of Law No. 1219 require the perpetrator to lack a diploma, individuals whose license (ruhsatname) has been revoked do not commit those offenses, but trigger Supplementary Article 11 of Law No. 3359 if they provide healthcare services.
Law No. 1262 on Pharmaceutical and Medical Preparations contains specific criminal provisions concerning unauthorized remedies and "folk medicines":
Persons who manufacture preparations without a license, or who knowingly sell, offer for sale, or cause the sale of preparations manufactured in this manner, shall be punished by imprisonment from one year to five years. If these preparations lack the therapeutic qualities attributed to them, or are manufactured using impure substances that reduce or eliminate these qualities, the penalty shall be increased by one-third. Persons who sell, market, or advertise any product with the claim that it diagnoses or treats diseases—despite not being a pharmaceutical preparation—shall be punished by imprisonment from one year to five years (Law No. 1262, Art. 19).
Att. Alp Öztekin
(This column was written for publication on www.hukukihaber.net and may be utilized only with proper citation compliant with legal and ethical principles.)
[1] News reports:
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[11] Court of Cassation Criminal General Assembly (CGK), Merits E. 1994/7-370, Decision K. 1995/12, Dated 13.02.1995.
[12] Court of Cassation, 15th Criminal Chamber, Merits E. 2016/531, Decision K. 2016/3519, Dated 18.04.2016.
[13] Court of Cassation, 12th Criminal Chamber, 2014, 12167/4410, as cited in: Hakan Hakeri, Medical Law (Tıp Hukuku), Seçkin, Ankara, 2018, p. 1202.
[14] Hakeri, op. cit., p. 1201.
[15] Court of Cassation, 19th Criminal Chamber, Merits E. 2016/7814, Decision K. 2017/11236, Dated 18.12.2017.
[16] Court of Cassation, 19th Criminal Chamber, Merits E. 2017/4527, Decision K. 2017/9516, Dated 13.11.2017.
[17] Court of Cassation, 7th Criminal Chamber, Merits E. 1999/2704, Decision K. 1999/3290, Dated 07.04.1999.
[18] Court of Cassation, 7th Criminal Chamber, Merits E. 2002/19352, Decision K. 2003/1551, Dated 21.04.2003, as cited in: Hakeri, op. cit., p. 1201.
[19] Court of Cassation, 19th Criminal Chamber, Merits E. 2017/4527, Decision K. 2017/9516, Dated 13.11.2017.
[20] Hakeri, op. cit., p. 1202.
[21] Court of Cassation, 19th Criminal Chamber, Merits E. 2015/12910, Decision K. 2017/7556, Dated 02.10.2017.
[22] Court of Cassation, 7th Criminal Chamber, Merits E. 2013/6767, Decision K. 2014/11545, Dated 05.06.2014.
[23] Court of Cassation, 7th Criminal Chamber, Merits E. 1997/10438, Decision K. 1997/10503, Dated 19.12.1997.
[24] Court of Cassation, 7th Criminal Chamber, Merits E. 2003/5734, Decision K. 2004/3339, Dated 10.03.2004.
[25] Court of Cassation, 19th Criminal Chamber, Merits E. 2016/15292, Decision K. 2017/11617.
[26] Hakeri, op. cit., p. 1206.
