Criticism on Indonesian Doctors’ Protection Law (Raboan Discussion Forum)

The Center for Bioethics and Medical Humanities (CBMH FK-KMK UGM) again held an online discussion forum Raboan Discussion Forum on Wednesday (06/04). On that occasion, the forum raised the topic of discussion on Quo Vadis Legal Protection for Doctors and Dentists in Running their Profession. The topic material was presented by the speaker, dr. Sofwan Dahlan, SpF(K) who is a lecturer at the Faculty of Medicine, Sultan Agung University, Semarang. Meanwhile, the discussion was led by dr. Sigid Kirana Lintang Bhima, Sp.FM(K) who is the Secretary of MKEK IDI Central Java Region.

dr. Sofwan Dahlan highlighted the problem of legal protection for doctors and dentists in Indonesia, which have not succeeded in providing a sense of security in the implementation of medical practice. Legal protection should reflect the law as a set of rules that have a function to provide justice, order, certainty, benefit and peace.

According to dr. Sofwan Dahlan, when an adverse event or unexpected event occurs, patients tend to take criminal law routes to increase their bargaining position to demand compensation. This situation is exacerbated by the actions of law enforcement officers who often apply articles 365 and 360 of the Criminal Code or criminal articles outside the Criminal Code such as the Medical Practice Act or the Hospital Law with more severe sanctions.

These conditions necessitate a legal dialectic with the formation of ius constituendum or laws that are planned in the future. The establishment is intended to make the current law (ius constituum) better. According to dr. Sofwan Dahlan, currently there are several shortcomings of the Medical Practice Act, including:
1. The UUPK applies many criminal articles that carry a heavier penalty.
2. UUPK often criminalizes the actions of doctors which should not be criminal acts (eg not putting up a sign).
3. UUPK applies formal offenses (not material offenses), so that substandard actions can be punished, even though wrongful death / personal injury does not occur.
4. UUPK has not succeeded in formulating lex specialis based on the right concept (because it has not been able to separate professional Negligence from general Negligence, so that any negligence is subject to Article 359 or 360 of the Criminal Code).

dr. Sofwan Dahlan concluded that there is a need for a good and fair Medical Practice Law for all parties, so that it can answer the concerns of doctors and dentists in terms of medical practice. The law needs to be carefully drafted in order to establish a criminal policy and a penal policy, provide a clear distinction between general negligence and professional negligence (professional misconduct), and be able to fill legal voids related to the “No Fault Compensation” doctrine.