| |
|
|
| |
| 投稿时间： 2015-06-02 最后修改时间： 2015-07-25 摘要点击次数: 2316 全文下载次数: 5 |
| |
| 引用本文：李培磊, 邓勇.医疗纠纷“限额私了”条款评价及改进建议[J].中国卫生政策研究,2015,8(9):45-52 |
|
| 李培磊1, 邓勇2 |
1. 中国政法大学法学院 北京 100088;
2. 北京中医药大学人文学院 北京 100029 |
| 基金项目:国家社会科学基金重点项目(12AZD124) |
| |
|
| | 摘要:许多地方立法规定了公立医院只能在一定限额内与患者以私了方式解决医疗纠纷的条款。这类条款保护的权益超过了限制的权益,手段也适当,因此在大体上具有正当性,但是存在一些问题:作为减损权利的规范,其立法层级和法律效力都有待提高;私了限额的设定存在任意性;区别对待公立和非公立医疗机构不具备正当理由,实质上体现了政府职能的竞合;另外,一味限制私了忽视了自主型纠纷解决机制的自治功能等。本文针对这些问题,提出了改进立法的建议。 | |
|
|
关键词:医疗纠纷 私了 纠纷解决机制 法治政府 自治
|
| |
| On the evaluation and improvement of the amount-based restriction of negotiation in private when resolving medical disputes |
| LI Pei-lei1, DENG Yong2 |
1. The Law School of China University of Political Science and Law, Beijing 100088, China;
2. School of Humanities, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing 100029, China |
| |
|
| | Abstract:The amount-based restriction of negotiation in private when resolving medical disputes is quite common in much local legislation. This kind of provision is legitimate in general, because the rights and interests it protects overweigh those it limits, and the measures it takes are proper. However, there are several flaws. Firstly, as a provision which impairs the rights of citizen, the level of legislation and legal effect need to be upgraded. Secondly, the set of the amount of limitation is arbitrary. Thirdly, differential treatment of public and non-public medical institution in the provision cannot be justified; it actually shows confliction between different government functions. Lastly, blindly limitation of negotiation in private has neglect something important, that is the self-government functions behind autonomous disputes settlement mechanism. Based on these flaws, several improvement suggestions are provided. | |
|
|
|
|
