Earticle

초록

영어

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.

목차

Ⅰ. 绪论
Ⅱ. 日本医疗纠纷处理机制
1. 日本传统医疗纠纷化解机制
2. 日本医疗纠纷化解的ADR机制：医师协会参与化解
Ⅲ. 韩国医疗纠纷处理机制
1. 司法诉讼和法院化解纠纷
2. 韩国医疗ADR机制: 医疗纠纷调解仲裁院
Ⅳ. 中国医疗纠纷ADR机制的问题与挑战
1. 中国医疗纠纷困境
2. 中国的医疗纠纷ADR制度
Ⅴ. 结论与对中国的启示
1. 建立和完善有关医疗纠纷ADR机制的法律法规，明确医疗纠纷ADR化解程序规范
2. 建立医疗ADR专门机构，进行权威、专业、合情合理的诉讼外化解
3. 完善医疗纠纷诉讼外化解配套机制，为医疗纠纷诉讼外化解构建畅通渠道
4. 完善科学、合理的赔偿金额规范，使医患纠纷诉讼外化解更加制度化
参考文献
논문초록

키워드

의료갈등 일본의사협회 한국의료분쟁조정위원회 대안적분쟁해결방안 중국 medical disputes Japanese Medical Association Korean Medical Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Agency Alternative Dispute Resolution China 医疗纠纷，日本医师协会 韩国医疗纠纷调解仲裁院，替代性纠纷解决方式，中国

저자

• 李志行 [ 이지행 | 中国广东海洋大学管理学院公共管理系讲师 ] 第一作者
• 毛讷讷 [ 모눌눌 | 南开大学 周恩来政府管理学院 博士研究生 ] 通讯作者

참고문헌

발행기관

간행물