日韩医患纠纷非诉讼化解机制及其对中国的启示
The enlightenment to China from Japanese and Korean Non-litigation mechanism of disputes between doctors and patients
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The social and cultural backgrounds of China, Japan and Korea are similarities. Therefore, there are many and references in social governance. The Japanese Medical Doctors Association has established a system of professional liability insurance, and the association would participate in the mediation if the medical disputes have generated. On the other hand South Korea has established a Medical Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Agency. What’s more, both countries have achieved good dispute resolution effects in the practice of ADR systems and formed a standardized for the medical dispute handling mechanism, so the doctor-patient conflict performance is not very intense. This paper analyzes the successful experience of Japan and South Korea in dealing with medical disputes. Especially the non-litigation method to resolve medical disputes and analyzes the main problems existing in the current medical dispute resolution mechanism and methods in China. This essay found that influenced by the traditional methods, the ADR mechanism in China, Japan and Korea has distinctive differences on its demand, way of formation and mechanism, etc, through the analysis of the formation and development of ADR mechanism in medical disputes. Specifically, ADR mechanism has been massively influenced by its traditional mediation system, which leads to a further transformation from traditional mediation to modern legislation. In Korea, ADR mechanism ‘s development indicates that the pressure of litigation is greatly promoting the special legislation, while in China, the process of adopting ADR mechanism shows that conflicts is pushing the system construction. Therefore, comparing these three countries’ ADR mechanism, China is supposed to improve its ADR mechanism from these four aspects: First, build up and improve the legislation about ADR mechanism and clear the specifications of ADR resolving procedures. Second, set up ADR special institutions to settle extralegal issues authoritatively, professionally and appropriately. Third, improve the supporting mechanism resolving medical disputes outside the litigation so as to establish a smooth channel for resolving medical disputes outside the litigation. Fourth, complete complementary amount regulations to institutionalize the settlement of medical disputes outside the lawsuit. Medical disputes in China, Japan and Korea shows different characteristics. Meanwhile, the promotion, leading agency, resolving procedures and resolving effect of their resolving mechanism outside the litigation also have distinctive differences. It’s necessary to summarize, develop and complete ADR mechanism by clarifying and analyzing why these differences exist based on the comparison and learning from the different features of medical disputes in China, Japan and Korea, which greatly inspires other countries on how to settle medical disputes and further promotes the relationships between doctors and patients.
Abstract
The social and cultural backgrounds of China, Japan and Korea are similarities. Therefore, there are many and references in social governance. The Japanese Medical Doctors Association has established a system of professional liability insurance, and the association would participate in the mediation if the medical disputes have generated. On the other hand South Korea has established a Medical Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Agency. What’s more, both countries have achieved good dispute resolution effects in the practice of ADR systems and formed a standardized for the medical dispute handling mechanism, so the doctor-patient conflict performance is not very intense. This paper analyzes the successful experience of Japan and South Korea in dealing with medical disputes. Especially the non-litigation method to resolve medical disputes and analyzes the main problems existing in the current medical dispute resolution mechanism and methods in China. This essay found that influenced by the traditional methods, the ADR mechanism in China, Japan and Korea has distinctive differences on its demand, way of formation and mechanism, etc, through the analysis of the formation and development of ADR mechanism in medical disputes. Specifically, ADR mechanism has been massively influenced by its traditional mediation system, which leads to a further transformation from traditional mediation to modern legislation. In Korea, ADR mechanism ‘s development indicates that the pressure of litigation is greatly promoting the special legislation, while in China, the process of adopting ADR mechanism shows that conflicts is pushing the system construction. Therefore, comparing these three countries’ ADR mechanism, China is supposed to improve its ADR mechanism from these four aspects: First, build up and improve the legislation about ADR mechanism and clear the specifications of ADR resolving procedures. Second, set up ADR special institutions to settle extralegal issues authoritatively, professionally and appropriately. Third, improve the supporting mechanism resolving medical disputes outside the litigation so as to establish a smooth channel for resolving medical disputes outside the litigation. Fourth, complete complementary amount regulations to institutionalize the settlement of medical disputes outside the lawsuit. Medical disputes in China, Japan and Korea shows different characteristics. Meanwhile, the promotion, leading agency, resolving procedures and resolving effect of their resolving mechanism outside the litigation also have distinctive differences. It’s necessary to summarize, develop and complete ADR mechanism by clarifying and analyzing why these differences exist based on the comparison and learning from the different features of medical disputes in China, Japan and Korea, which greatly inspires other countries on how to settle medical disputes and further promotes the relationships between doctors and patients.
참고문헌 (22)
- 김정인, "참여형 공공갈등관리의 이해" (2018), 박영사
- 최희경, "한국의 의료갈등과 의료정책" (2007), 지식산업사
- 홍준형, "공공갈등의 관리, 과제와 해법" (2009), 법문사
- 常建, "公共冲突管理" (2012), 中国人民大学出版社
- 白绿铉编译, "日本新民事诉讼法" (2000), 中国法制出版社
- 小岛武司, "诉讼外纠纷解决法" (2005), 中国政法大学出版社
- 王赣闽, "当前医患纠纷治理机制的现状, 问题及对策", 华北水利水电大学学报(社会科学版), (1), pp.100~103 (2019)
- 范愉, "浅谈当代"非诉讼纠纷解决"的发展及其趋势", 比较法研究, (3), pp.29~43 (2003)
- 王安富, "ADR机制在解决医疗纠纷中的应用与完善", 中国卫生事业管理, (4), pp.255~256 (2009)
- 杨自根, "国内外医疗纠纷非诉讼解决机制的比较研究", 健康研究, (6), pp.183~186 (2010)
- 平田勇人, "医療裁判から医療ADRへ--動き始めた新たな医療紛争処理システム", 法律のひろば, (3), pp.59~ (2011)
- 夏芸, "日本医疗诉讼改革及对鉴定结论的评价", 证据科学, (3), pp.261~287 (2009)
- 洪性奎, "日本ADR法的主要内容及其启示", 韩国贸易学报, (2), pp.173~196 (2007)
- 金镜澧, "非诉讼方式医疗纠纷化解", 博士, pp.2012
- 韩国医疗纠纷调解仲裁院, "2018韩国医疗纠纷调整统计年报", 120~139 (2019)
- 中国医师协会, "在全国部分省市调查"医闹"的分析报告", 中国卫生产业, (2), pp.57~59 (2007)
- 李志行, "韩国医疗冲突化解体制对中国的启示", 未来与发展, (1), pp.27~32 (2016)
- "日本医师协会官网" (2019)[URL]
- "韩国立法研究院" (2019)[URL]
- "中华医学会" (2019)[URL]
- 人民日报, "全国建立医调组织三千多个医疗纠纷调解成功率88%", ~ (2014)
