Bill gives more protection to doctors than patients

Bill gives more protection to doctors than patients

The Jakarta Post, Jakarta

In the case of malpractice, many people opt not to file a
lawsuit, fearing that law enforcers would demand that an autopsy
be performed on the bodies of their loved ones.

They instead chose to remain quiet or seek a peaceful
settlement.

Some cases have, however, made it to court, but nearly all of
them ended with disappointment for the plaintiffs as the majority
of verdicts were in favor of the doctors.

Most of the verdicts claimed that the cases were accidents or
that the doctors did the right thing.

Nothing is likely to change as the House of Representatives is
working on a bill on the medical practice that apparently favors
doctors.

The bill was drafted by the Indonesian Doctors Association
(IDI), which handed it over to House Commission VII for health
and people's welfare.

The commission processed the bill to become the House's
initiative bill and submitted it to the House in late 2001 for
deliberation together with the government.

The bill pays scant attention to the issues of malpractice and
instead devotes most of its 182 articles to the establishment of
a special court to settle disputes between physicians or health
organizations and their clients.

A total of 119 articles -- out of 182 articles -- discuss the
establishment of a medical profession disciplinary court, who may
become the judges and how to file a lawsuit with the court.

In contrast, only two of the bill's articles are related to
crime: articles 172 and 173. Even so, the two articles fail to
mention malpractice but are related to doctors' licenses and
certification.

Marius Widjajanto, chairman of the Indonesian Health Consumers
Organization, said that the new bill only confirmed the strong
position of doctors against people who sought justice over
possible malpractice.

"The objective of drafting the law was aimed at strengthening
the position of those involved in medical services, while
patients positions are weakened," Marius told The Jakarta Post on
Tuesday.

The deputy chairman of House Commission VII for people's
welfare, Ahmad Sanoesi Tambunan, dispelled the concerns, saying
that the main objective of the bill was to give a legal basis for
the establishment of the medical council and the special court.

"Both institutions, which will be established after the bill
is passed into law, will address all complaints about health
services and resolve disputes between doctors and their
patients," he said.

Another member of IDI, Sanoesi, said it was important that
people did not misconstrue the bill, but support the deliberation
of the bill to give stronger legal grounds for the public to get
better health services.

"We submitted the bill in late 2001. And we have contacted a
number of officials to discuss the issue, but so far we have got
no positive response," complained Sanoesi.

A senior IDI official, Merdias Almatsier, also called for the
immediate deliberation of the bill.

"We need a medical profession disciplinary court as an
umbrella to resolve problems such as malpractice," he said.

Marius, however, disagreed and said the country would be
better off not having a medical law rather than having the one
submitted to the House.

He suggested the government utilize prevailing Law No. 23/1992
on health to protect the people from possible losses from medical
practices.

The government, Marius said, should draw up a number of
government regulations (PPs) to address various issues of medical
practices, including malpractice and the establishment of a
medical council.

According to Marius, the law requires some 30 PPs to make it
applicable. However, the government has thus far made only six.

In the absence of clear regulations, the police, prosecutors
and judges would find it difficult to send irresponsible doctors
to jail due to the strong bond among doctors.

Thus far, he said, the police, prosecutors and judges used
articles in the Criminal Code as their reference to try doctors
accused of malpractice.

"It is not surprising, therefore, if judges cannot make fair
decisions on malpractice cases as there is no clear legal basis
that can be used as a reference for their decision on alleged
malpractice," said Marius.

Therefore, Marius said that it would be better for the
government to drop the deliberation of the bill and concentrate
on making more PPs to protect the public from bad medical
practices.

Article 172: Anyone intentionally committing medical practice:
(a) without a medical registration certificate and license to
practice; (b) without a medical nameboard outside their office or
practice; (c) not following professional medical standards; (d)
promising success for certain medical treatments; (e) not keeping
medical records; can be jailed for a maximum of five years and/or
fined Rp 150 million.

Article 173: Anyone who (a) employs medical workers without a
license to practice or a registration certificate; (b) implements
medical science causing heavy ethical impact without the consent
of the Medical Council; can be jailed for a maximum of 10 years
and/or fined Rp 300 million.