醫療調解的法律層面特殊性探討【本期企劃】 試閱
Discussing the Legal Specificity of Medical Mediation
醫預法所建立的妥速醫療爭議處理機制，是先由醫療機構提供說明、溝通及關懷服務，次以強制先行醫療調解，並在調解過程中引進第三方意見，因而造成醫療調解在法律層面特殊性，先由調解委員之資格與分組限定，以進階的醫法雙調解委員模式，藉由對引進之第三方意見的解讀供參及意見表達以強化性評價式調解，消弭爭議，因而調解成立者，同時提高了有重要之爭點錯誤的撤銷事由發生可能性，也對於後續刑事訴訟鑑定人是否應排除有參與此先行程序的各委員或擴及同一醫事機構之專家的爭議，另若涉及非告訴乃論的刑事案件也不因調解成立而豁免刑事責任。至於調解不成立時，醫預法就視為起訴或提出告訴之行為與期間，也修正了鄉鎮市調解條例第31條的實務爭議，值得肯定。
The Medical Accident Prevention and Dispute Resolution Act outlines a rapid mechanism for resolving medical disputes. This mechanism involves medical institutes providing explanation, communication, and care services, followed by mandatory medical mediation. During the mediation process, third-party opinions may be introduced, resulting in the special characteristics of medical mediation at the normative level. Mediation is limited by the qualifications and grouping of the mediator, who is then equipped with medical and legal knowledge. Disputes are resolved through the interpretation of third-party opinions introduced for participation and the expression of opinions to strengthen evaluative mediation. If established, mediation may revoke the errors on important issues. The question of whether mediators or members of the committee, including experts from the same medical institutes, should be excluded as expert witnesses in criminal proceedings can be resolved. It should be noted that the establishment of mediation cannot lead to exemption from criminal liability in cases involving indictable offenses. Although mediation was not established, it can be considered equivalent to filing a lawsuit or complaint and counted towards the relevant time period. This mechanism resolves the practical controversy of paragraph 31 of The Township and County Administered City Mediation Act and deserves affirmation.
019-034
