二元制抑或一元制:医疗纠纷鉴定模式的选择  

Dualism or Monism:the Mode for the Identification of Medical Disputes

作　　者：郭华[1] 

机构地区：[1]中央财经大学法学院,北京100081

出　　处：《中国司法鉴定》2010年第5期8-15,共8页Chinese Journal of Forensic Sciences

基　　金：司法部2009年度国家法治与法学理论研究项目(09SFB2026)

摘　　要：医疗(事故)纠纷因专门性问题源于医疗事故技术鉴定和司法鉴定的"二元制"鉴定模式,致使纠纷解决的法律在选择适用上出现不同的结果,并造成了同一事实的处理结果尤其是赔偿的数额差异甚巨。《侵权责任法》的实施能否终结"二元制"鉴定模式,使冲突的相关规定、解释、解答等相关文本在法律适用上归于统一再次成为颇具争论的问题。基于医疗事故技术鉴定与司法鉴定结果在证据性质上的同一,有必要将医疗事故技术"鉴定"仅作为行政程序的内容,并进一步建立解决医疗纠纷的鉴定机制,体现鉴定作为证据的"认定"功能,以便实现医疗行为共担风险以及利益平衡的基本目标。Medical （malpractices） disputes can be settled by applying different laws, owing to the dualistic modes of identification-the technical identification of medical malpractices, and the forensic appraisal; the result of a medical dispute, especially the amount of compensation, is likely to vary enormously in spite of the same facts.It is rather controversial whether the dualistic modes of identification will be terminated after the implementation of the Tort Liability Law, and whether the application of law will be unified by revising contradictory stipulations, interpretations and answers.As technical identification of medical malpractices and forensic appraisal have identical nature of evidence, it is necessary to view the technical ＂identification＂ of medical malpractices as an administrative procedure and further establish an identification mechanism for the settlement of medical disputes, for the purpose of demonstrating that the identification functions are merely the ＂ascertainment＂ of evidence and achieving the basic goal of sharing medical risks and balancing relevant interests.

关 键 词：医疗事故技术鉴定 司法鉴定 鉴定模式 

分 类 号：D922.16[政治法律—宪法学与行政法学]