新《民诉法》视角下“医疗损害鉴定意见”质证之思考  

Reflection on the Cross-examination of“Medical Damage Appraisal Opinion”from the Perspective of New Civil Procedure Law

作　　者：张维帅[1] 农小雨[1] 尹梅[1] 张雪[1] 

机构地区：[1]哈尔滨医科大学人文社会科学学院,黑龙江哈尔滨150081

出　　处：《医学与哲学（A）》2015年第4期56-59,共4页Medicine & Philosophy:Humanistic & Social Medicine Edition

基　　金：2014年黑龙江省社会科学基金重点项目"医疗体制转型与我国医患关系变革研究";项目编号:14A005;2013年黑龙江省高等教育教学改革项目"高等医学院校医学生职业精神教育方法与路径的研究与实践";项目编号:JG2013010432

摘　　要：在医疗损害诉讼中,鉴定意见应经过质证程序的审查才能作为证据被加以使用,不能直接作为审理和定案的结论。质证程序的审查有助于减少因鉴定意见的内容过于专业、不能与庭审有效对接,以及"主观化"等因素给诉讼带来的不利影响。立足于《民事诉讼法》对质证程序的既有规定,通过提高鉴定人的出庭能力、细化质证程序的具体规则,以及完善和践行"专家辅助人"制度等进路,保障质证程序的有效进行,从而使医疗损害诉讼案件的处理更加公正和合理。In the process of medical damage malpractice litigation ,appraisal opinion can only be used as the evidence when being cross‐examined but neither be directly used as inquisition on the court trail nor the court judgement on a case .The process of cross‐examination contributes to reduce the adverse effects of excessive professionalization of appraisal opinions and inefficient connection with court trail ,etc .Based on the existing regulation of cross‐examination process in“the civil procedure law” ,the efficiency of cross‐examination process is ensured through strategies of improving expertise ability and“subjectivization” ,concretizing the regulation of cross‐examination , and implementing the modified “expert assistants system” so that the appraisal of medical damage malpractice will be more impartial and justified .

关 键 词：医疗损害鉴定意见 质证 证据审查 

分 类 号：R-05[医药卫生] D922.16[政治法律—宪法学与行政法学]