The article presents statistical data on cases brought under Article 118 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. A negative trend is noted: with the general reduction of the number of committed crimes, there is a specific growth of negligent infliction of serious harm to health. The article describes proposals existing in criminal law science for aggravation of penalty for careless infliction of grave harm to health. It is noted that the victim by Part 1 of Article 118 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is not often interested in the appointment of a penalty of imprisonment (in some cases this may satisfy his desire to take revenge, but it will bring him nothing in material terms). More often the victim sees satisfaction in real and timely opportunities to compensate for the damage caused by the crime in full. Therefore, the most preferred alternative types of punishment not connected with isolation from the society, which allow the accused to compensate for the caused the damage in the normal conditions of his life. The current sanction of Article 118 of the Criminal Code provides for the possibility to appoint one of the five types of punishment: a fine, compulsory works, corrective works, restriction of freedom as an alternative punishment, not connected with isolation from the society, and arrest as a measure of punishment alternative to imprisonment. However, there are more alternatives of possible punishments de jure than de facto. So far courts have not considered arrest as a form of punishment, and restriction of liberty was introduced in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation only on January 10, 2010. In practice, courts appoint fines, compulsory and correctional works. In this case, from 2005 to 2010 fine as a penalty on the territory of Tomsk region was appointed only in 10.3% of the criminal cases studied under Art. 118 of the Criminal Code. Compulsory work was appointed in 24.1% of cases, corrective works  in 27.6% of cases. The criminological description of the personality of the convicted person under Art. 118 of the Criminal Code is given, which is mainly characterized by its positive image, lack of criminal record and situational nature of the perpetration of a crime. The fact is emphasised that for the period from 2005 to 2010, on the territory of Tomsk region crimes with the careless infliction of grave harm to health there was not a single case of a repeated committing of the crime, which testifies to the effective implementation of the preventive role of sanctions of Article 118 of the Criminal Code. It is concluded that the application of the penalty of deprivation of liberty is inexpedient; and there are no objective prerequisites for the preservation of a special form of criminal liability for the careless infliction of grave harm to health owing to inadequate execution of professional duties. At the same time there is a need for criminalization within Part 2 of Art. 118 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation of such an act as careless infliction of grave harm to health to two and more persons.

С учетом статистических данных о делах, возбужденных по ст. 118 УК РФ, рассматриваются существующие в уголовно-правовой науке предложения по усилению ответственности за неосторожное причинение тяжкого вреда здоровью. Делается вывод о нецелесообразности применения к виновному лишения свободы и об отсутствии объективных предпосылок сохранения специального вида уголовной ответственности за причинение тяжкого вреда здоровью по неосторожности вследствие ненадлежащего исполнения лицом своих профессиональных обязанностей. В то же время отмечается необходимость криминализации в рамках ч. 2 ст. 118 УК РФ такого деяния, как причинение тяжкого вреда здоровью по неосторожности двум и более лицам.