July 2022

VOlUME 05 ISSUE 07 JULY 2022
Legal Responsibility of Fetal Diagnosis by Objective Specialists in Hospital
1I Wayan Rusdiarna Eka Putra, 2Asmuni
1,2Universitas Hang Tuah Surabaya
DOI : https://doi.org/10.47191/ijsshr/v5-i7-63

Google Scholar Download Pdf
ABSTRACT

Negligence of health service providers is regulated in Article 58 of Law Number 36 of 2009 concerning Health concerning the right of everyone to claim compensation for a person, health worker, and/or health provider who causes losses due to errors or omissions in the services they receive. Both parties have their own responsibilities. Doctors will consider the medical actions taken, while the hospital is responsible for the health services it provides. The purpose of this study was to analyze the legal liability of specialist doctors related to fetal misdiagnosis. The legal material used in this research is statutory regulations. Secondary legal materials are legal materials obtained from textbooks, journals, legal cases and symposia conducted by legal experts. Tertiary legal materials are legal materials that provide meaningful instructions or explanations for primary and secondary materials such as legal dictionaries, encyclopedias, the Big Indonesian Dictionary and others. Based on the analysis and discussion in determining the criminal legal responsibility of content specialists related to misdiagnosis of the fetus, then based on Article 361 of the Criminal Code (KUHP), it must be explained that the doctor will be responsible for determining the examination actions that occur if an error occurs. The diagnosis made by a doctor must be proven by a doctor who is competent in that field. There is no possibility that the Doctor can argue that he has made the appropriate diagnosis.

KEYWORDS:

Legal Responsibility, Fetal Diagnosis, Objective Specialists.

REFERENCES

1) Aristya, S.D.F. 2011. “Civil Evidence in Malpractice Cases in Yogyakarta”, Jurnal Pulpit Hukum p. 180-181.

2) Asmuni & Pramono, B. 2021. Threat of Criminal Sanctions for Perpetrators of Forced Retrieval of Bodies of Suspected and Probable Covid-19 Patients. IUS Journal of Law and Justice Studies Volume 9 No 3. Online: https://jurnalius.ac.id/ojs/index.php/jurnalIUS/article/view/933

3) Guwandi, J. 2006. Alleged Medical Malpractice & Draft RPP: Therapeutic Agreements Between Doctors. and Patients, University of Indonesia Faculty of Medicine Publishing Center: Jakarta

4) Halidi, R. and Rachmawat, D. 2022. "Convicted of minimal amniotic fluid, this woman claims to be a victim of doctor's scams" online: https://www.voice.com/health/2021/02/08/140810/convicted -minimum-amniotic-female-this-confess-to-be- victim-of-a-doctor's trick?page=2,

5) Hanafiah, M.J & Amri A. 1999. Medical Ethics Health Law, EGC Medical Book: Jakarta

6) Lubis, M.S. 2008. Consumers and Patients in Indonesian Law, ed. 1. cet.Liberty: Yogyakarta

7) Marzuki, P.M. 2005. Legal Research, Kencana, Penada Media Group: Jakarta

8) Novianto, W.T. “The interpretation of the law in determining the elements of medical malpractice negligence”, Yustisia, (May-August, 2015), pp. 143

9) Soekanto, S and Mamudji, S. 2001. Normative Legal Research: A Brief Overview, Rajawali Press: Jakarta

VOlUME 05 ISSUE 07 JULY 2022

Indexed In

Avatar Avatar Avatar Avatar Avatar Avatar Avatar Avatar Avatar Avatar Avatar Avatar Avatar Avatar Avatar Avatar