PEMBUKTIAN MALPRAKTEK DALAM SUATU TINDAKAN MEDIS DOKTER SPESIALIS MENURUT UNDANG-UNDANG NOMOR 8 TAHUN 1981 DAN UNDANG-UNDANG NOMOR 20 TAHUN 2025
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54314/jssr.v9i2.6118Keywords:
Evidence, Medical Malpractice, Specialist Doctors, Criminal Procedure Law, Legal ProtectionAbstract
This study aims to analyze the evidentiary system in medical malpractice cases involving specialist doctors under Law Number 8 of 1981 concerning Criminal Procedure Law and Law Number 20 of 2025 and to compare the effectiveness of both systems in providing legal protection for patients. This research is normative legal research employing statutory and comparative approaches, using primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials analyzed qualitatively. The results show that the evidentiary system under Law Number 8 of 1981 remains limited and formalistic, thus not fully accommodating the complexity of proof in medical malpractice cases which require scientific and professional approaches. Meanwhile, Law Number 20 of 2025 expands the scope of admissible evidence, including electronic and scientific evidence, making it more adaptive to developments in science and technology in the medical field. The comparison indicates a paradigm shift from formal legal certainty toward a balance between legal certainty, justice, and utility. Therefore, the evidentiary regulation under Law Number 20 of 2025 is considered more responsive in handling medical malpractice cases by specialist doctors and provides more optimal legal protection for patients as victims.
Downloads
References
A. Buku
Amiruddin dan Zainal Asikin, 2004, Pengantar Metode Penelitian Hukum, Jakarta: Raja Grafindo Persada.
Andi Hamzah, 2017, Asas-asas Hukum Pidana, Jakarta:Rineka Cipta.
Anny Isfandyarie, 2006, Tanggung Jawab Hukum dan Sanksi bagi
Dokter. Jakarta: Prestasi Pustaka
Chrisdiono M. Achadiat, 2007, Dinamika Etika dan Hukum Kedokteran dalam Tantangan Zaman, Jakarta: EGC.
Danny Wiradharma, 1996, Penuntun Kuliah Hukum Kedokteran, Jakarta: Binarupa Aksara.
Dr. Adolf Bastian, S.Pd., M.Pd. (Penanggungjawab), 2022, Pedoman Penulisan Proposal Tesis dan Tesis, Pekanbaru : Program Pascasarjana.Gustav Radbruch dan So Wong Kim, Legal Philosophy, Edisi 3 (Korea: Sam Young Sa, 2022), hlm. 220.
Anny Retnowati, Pertanggungjawaban Pidana Dokter dalam Tindakan Medis yang Menyebabkan Kematian Pasien. Jurnal Yudisial, Vol. 14 No. 3, 2021, hlm. 234-251.
David M. Studdert et al., Defensive Medicine Among High-Risk Specialist Physicians in a Volatile Malpractice Environment, JAMA, Vol. 293 No. 21, 2005, hlm. 2609
Diah Ayu Puspitasari, Perlindungan Hukum Bagi Dokter dalam Pelaksanaan Tindakan Medis di Rumah Sakit. Jurnal Hukum Kesehatan Indonesia, Vol. 7 No. 2, 2020, hlm. 145-162.
Muhammad Rifai, Aspek Hukum Malpraktik Medik dalam Perspektif Hukum Perdata. Jurnal Ilmu Hukum, Vol. 15 No. 1, 2019, hlm. 78-95.
James Robinson, et al. Legal Protection for Healthcare Professionals: A Comparative Study. British Medical Journal of Law, Vol. 42 No. 3, 2018, hlm. 456-478.
Jan Michiel Otto, Rule of Law Promotion, Land Tenure and Poverty Alleviation: Questioning the Assumptions, Leiden University Research, 2009, hlm. 13.
Sri Wahyuni, Informed Consent dalam Tindakan Bedah Caesar: Aspek Hukum dan Etika. Indonesian Journal of Medical Law, Vol. 5 No. 2, 2022, hlm. 112-128.
Peraturan Perundang-undangan
Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1945. Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana (KUHP).
Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Perdata (KUHPerdata). Undang-Undang Nomor 17 Tahun 2023 tentang Kesehatan.
Undang-Undang Nomor 29 Tahun 2004 tentang Praktik Kedokteran.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Fadler Hidayat, Ardiansah, Andrizal
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
