论医疗事故及医疗事故技术鉴定结论的性质

医疗事故纠纷成为近年来的热点问题。要很好的处理医疗纠纷，制订出切实、可行的法规，必须明确医疗事故的法律性质和医疗事故技术鉴定委员会做出的鉴定结论的性质。笔者认为，造成医疗事故的不当医疗行为符合侵权行为的构成要件,因此，应是侵权行为。相应的，医疗机构对病员应予赔偿，而非补偿。目前的医疗事故鉴定体制存在着很多弊端。对于鉴定结论的性质，笔者认为，从证据规则的原理和民事诉讼法、行政诉讼法的规定看，它应是卫生行政机关和法院处理医疗纠纷的证据，而非依据。卫生行政机关和法院可审查其证明力，决定是否适用。这样才有利于做出正确裁判。此外,还应采取有力措施保障病员及其家属的知情权。     

论医疗事故及医疗事故技术鉴定结论的性质

医疗事故纠纷成为近年来的热点问题。要很好的处理医疗纠纷 ,制订出切实、可行的法规 ,必须明确医疗事故的法律性质和医疗事故技术鉴定委员会做出的鉴定结论的性质。笔者认为 ,造成医疗事故的不当医疗行为符合侵权行为的构成要件 ,因此 ,应是侵权行为。相应的 ,医疗机构对病员应予赔偿 ,而非补偿。目前的医疗事故鉴定体制存在着很多弊端。对于鉴定结论的性质 ,笔者认为 ,从证据规则的原理和民事诉讼法、行政诉讼法的规定看 ,它应是卫生行政机关和法院处理医疗纠纷的证据 ,而非依据。卫生行政机关和法院可审查其证明力 ,决定是否适用。这样才有利于做出正确裁判。此外 ,还应采取有力措施保障病员及其家属的知情权。     

医疗纠纷中篡改病历相关法律责任研究

病历是医院最常见的文书之一。在法律上，病历也充当着重要的证据作用。在医疗纠纷中．病历是一把双刃剑，高质量的病历可以是医务人员的保护伞，反之则会是其最大的敌人。但是在医务人员在医疗纠纷中篡改病历的现象并不少见。关于篡改的病历的证据作用以及对相关人员的处理，国内外学者存在着不同的认识。     

医疗纠纷中篡改病历相关法律责任研究

病历是医院最常见的文书之一。在法律上,病历也充当着重要的证据作用。在医疗纠纷中,病历是一把双刃剑,高质量的病历可以是医务人员的保护伞,反之则会是其最大的敌人。但是在医务人员在医疗纠纷中篡改病历的现象并不少见。关于篡改的病历的证据作用以及对相关人员的处理,国内外学者存在着不同的认识。     

心外科手术后死亡医疗纠纷尸检分析

目的从尸检角度讨论心外科手术后死亡的死因及诊疗缺陷。方法按临床诊断、手术类型、死亡时间、死亡特点、尸检特点、纠纷特点、诊疗缺陷等方面,比较所选案例的临床、尸检资料特点。结果心瓣膜置换手术4例,冠心病冠脉搭桥手术1例,先心病大动脉转位手术1例。心肌梗死2例,心肌广泛损伤1例。心内膜感染2例,多器官功能衰竭1例。家属怀疑诊疗不当6例。诊疗缺陷主要为手术适应证、手术时机,手术器材的选用,手术操作,术后病情观察、处理不及时,对病情严重程度、手术风险及预后的告知不充分。结论尸检不仅能查明死因,还可帮助评价手术质量、术后处理的诊疗质量,对解决纠纷具有重要的辅助作用。     

Forensic medical examination of a medical malpractice case as a form of situational expertise

The authors propose to divide the process of forensic medical examination of a medical malpractice case into several stages and substantiate the possibility of their realization as a form of situational forensic medical expertise.     

论医疗技术规范在认定医疗过失中的作用

医疗过失是医疗事故和医疗侵权认定的重要要件,这可以从分析《医疗事故处理条例》中的相关内容得出结论。《医疗事故处理条例》第2条规定:本条例所称医疗事故,是指医疗机构及其医务人员在医疗活动中,违反医疗卫生管理法律、行政法规、部门规章和诊疗护理规范、常规,过失造成患者人身损害的事故。     

论医疗技术规范在认定医疗过失中的作用

一、医疗过失与医疗技术规范 （一）医疗过失 医疗过失是医疗事故和医疗侵权认定的重要要件,这可以从分析《医疗事故处理条例》中的相关内容得出结论.《医疗事故处理条例》第2条规定：本条例所称医疗事故,是指医疗机构及其医务人员在医疗活动中,违反医疗卫生管理法律、行政法规、部门规章和诊疗护理规范、常规,过失造成患者人身损害的事故.     

The structure of medical malpractice decision-making in Japan

The article summarises the problems in the medical malpractice litigation systems in the United Kingdom and Japan, demonstrating the similarities and identifying the length of time between initiating an action and its decision and other factors responsible for lengthy litigation. Based on analysis of decisions of medical malpractice cases between 1986 and 1998 in Japan, the functioning of the Japanese medical malpractice litigation system is discussed. Lengthy litigation is shown to be correlated with outcome and implies that the Japanese medical dispute resolution mechanism favours those who can endure lengthy litigation, namely the defendants, who are physicians or hospitals. In view of the similarities between the two systems, it is likely that the same bias--that the wealthier party in the litigation is more likely to win the case--also occurs in medical malpractice litigation in the United Kingdom and Australia.     

Variation in the growth and incidence of medical malpractice claims

This study analyzes the incidence of medical malpractice claims since 1976, using data drawn from the 1982 core survey of the American Medical Association's Socioeconomic Monitoring System. The data show that, on average, physicians incurred twice as many claims per year in the years 1976 to 1981 as they did during their careers prior to that period. Using Tobit analysis, we find the annual frequency of claims to be greater among surgeons, obstetricians and gynecologists (OBGs), physicians in group practice, and physicians in states which apply the legal doctrine of informed consent. In addition, we find that the number of years since medical residency is positively related to physicians' claims incidence during the first 27 years of practice, and that OBGs and medical specialists who spend more time with their patients per office visit incur fewer claims.     

The legal and ethical aspects of medical malpractice in Turkey

The issue of patients' rights is relatively unknown in our country but it is often recalled when an incident of death or disability is suspected as being caused by a physician's error. However patients' rights are being violated thousands of times every day in our country. More than these patients' rights' violations, the essential point is the lack of a mechanism to claim those rights and to complain about the practices which violate them. In our country, patients and their relatives are uninformed, powerless and unprotected against physicians and health organizations, and they typically accept whatever happens to them without complaint. Some of the reasons for this are, presumably, an underdeveloped consciousness of patients' rights, an absence of patient organizations, and insufficient ethical and legal regulations on patients' rights. These deficiencies were diminished somewhat by the "Regulation on Patients' Rights," which was prepared by the Ministry of Health in 1998. Another legal draft law referred to as "Responsibilities Due to Malpractice in Medical Services" has been prepared and is in the process of becoming law. This draft law and the general conditions of the country on this subject are evaluated in this article.     

浅析医疗纠纷案件久拖不决的原因及对策建议

随着我国依法治国方略的不断践行，法制宣传教育的不断深入，公民的法律意识、维权意识在不断提高，医疗纠纷案件也逐年增加。影响案件解决的因素复杂、多样，本文主要从调解解决、司法鉴定环节、法院诉讼几个阶段分析造成医疗纠纷案件久拖不决的原因以及提出相应的对策建议。     

柴某等诉村医高某医疗损害赔偿案

我国现阶段医疗纠纷的处理非常困难，鉴定与审判个性化高、规范化低，医疗机构及其医务人员、患(伤)者、鉴定人员和审判人员往往对医疗纠纷中的医疗行为是否有过错各持己见，行政、司法处理差别较大，甚至不同法院对同一事件做出截然相反、差距悬殊的判决，影响社会稳定，同时也使医疗纠纷变得更加错综复杂。而且，在已经发生法律效力的一些判决中，存在一些明显的问题和争议。为此，《法律与医学杂志》公开向社会各界征集具有代表性、典型性的判例(生效判决)，组织国内有关专家进行讨论、评析。相信这将会对提高和统一当事人、鉴定人和审判人员的认识，保障鉴定与司法公正，依法消除和缓解医疗纠纷具有重大意义。特别说明，本栏目所选案例来自全国各地，并且对其中的当事人及法院信息做了技术处理，仅为学术研究之用，不要对号入坐，所有评析、讨论意见均为专家观点，不代表本杂志的意见，任何组织和个人不得以本杂志讨论的内容作为诉讼依据。     

柴某等诉村医高某医疗损害赔偿案

我国现阶段医疗纠纷的处理非常困难,鉴定与审判个性化高、规范化低,医疗机构及其医务人员、患(伤)者、鉴定人员和审判人员往往对医疗纠纷中的医疗行为是否有过错各持己见,行政、司法处理差别较大,甚至不同法院对同一事件做出截然相反、差距悬殊的判决,影响社会稳定,同时也使医疗纠纷变得更加错综复杂。而且,在已经发生法律效力的一些判决中,存在一些明显的问题和争议。为此,《法律与医学杂志》公开向社会各界征集具有代表性、典型性的判例(生效判决),组织国内有关专家进行讨论、评析。相信这将会对提高和统一当事人、鉴定人和审判人员的认识,保障鉴定与司法公正,依法消除和缓解医疗纠纷具有重大意义。特别说明,本栏目所选案例来自全国各地,并且对其中的当事人及法院信息做了技术处理,仅为学术研究之用,不要对号入坐,所有评析、讨论意见均为专家观点,不代表本杂志的意见,任何组织和个人不得以本杂志讨论的内容作为诉讼依据。