RESUMO
The implementation of the Malpractice Handling Regulations provides medical institutions with a new framework for guarding against and handling medical disputes. Compared with the Methods for Handling Malpractices, it has many merits. However, as a newly published set of laws and regulations, it will doubtlessly be tested and challenged in one way or another in actual practice. The authors attempt to present their viewpoints from the following perspectives. Firstly, the determination of the nature of a malpractice ought to be linked with the degree of involvement in it, and it is unwise to take cases of minor liabilities as malpractices. Secondly, the rules for identifying the degree of a malpractice in negotiated settlement fall short of being reasonable and are not easy to implement, thus adding to the difficulty of negotiated settlement. Thirdly, is the stipulation of compensation for malpractices only fair, sensible and legal? Is it conducive to the negotiated settlement of medical disputes? Fourthly, since the Malpractice Handling Regulations are lacking in attention to the problem of lengthy lingering in the hospital on the grounds of malpractices, the authors put forward the suggestion that administrative laws and regulations of health ought to provide necessary support in terms of health laws and regulations for the judicial settlement of such cases.
