Comparation between Guidance for Judicial Expertise of Medical Malpractice and Medical Association Identification Rules of Medical Damage

Abstract

On the basis of retaining the technical identification system of medical negligence, the Medical Association Identification Rules of Medical Damage mainly provides technical services for various types of conciliation work about doctor-patient dispute. Its identification work is still influenced by the thinking of medical negligence technical identification and has certain administrative color. Guidance for Judicial Expertise of Medical Malpractice is mainly reflected that the trial of civil cases and pre-trial mediation of courts need service. Its procedures and evidence review are strictly required by the litigation rules and has the characteristics of public legal services provided as a third-party neutral institution. Technical identification of medical damage, whether organized by the Medical Association or the forensic identification institutions, is carried out under the background of the current Regulations on the Prevention and Treatment of Medical Disputes and the Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China; both have a corresponding positive role in regulating the medical damage identification activities, and have also laid a certain foundation for the establishment of a unified identification system in the future in China. To understand the different characteristics of the medical damage identification rules issued by the Chinese Medical Association and the Ministry of Justice, and to improve the understanding of the standardization of the forensic identification of medical damage, a comparative study was conducted on Medical Association Identification Rules of Medical Damage and Guidance for Judicial Expertise of Medical Malpractice from seven aspects: Concept and legal status, entrust of identification, identification acceptance, identification procedures, identification presentation meeting, theory of medical malpractice evaluation, consequences and causality of medical damage. The subject of evaluation, the function of evidence review, the role of consulting experts, the technical standard system of malpractice evaluation and other contents were emphatically analyzed.

Keywords

• forensic medicine
• medical damage
• forensic identification
• standard
• comparative study