Urgensi Penyelesaian Dugaan Kesalahan Medis Melalui Restorative Justice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to examine and analyze efforts to resolve alleged medical errors through mediation as a Restorative Justice approach and developments in several developed countries such as America, Japan, and Canada as a basis for comparison. This research needs to be discussed more deeply because the dispute should be mediated through a Restorative Justice approach as a reference for legal reform in Indonesia, this approach aims to "restorative" not only patients, but also health service providers, and the community. In accordance with health regulations in Indonesia, mediation is required in the event of an error or negligence by health workers before other legal channels are taken. The research method used is a normative juridical approach with legislation, concepts, and comparisons. The results of the discussion of this research provide an alternative settlement or fair medical law enforcement. In addition to contributing at the theoretical level as well as in developing the theory of settlement and law enforcement in the medical field, it is also hoped that this can be a prospect for law enforcement of medical disputes in Indonesia.Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengkaji dan menganalisis upaya penyelesaian dugaan kesalahan medis melalui mediasi melalui pendekatan Restorative Justice serta perkembangan di beberapa negara seperti Amerika, Jepang dan Kanada sebagai dasar perbandingan. Penelitian ini perlu dibahas lebih dalam karena seyogyanya sengketa tersebut dilakukan mediasi melalui pendekatan Restorative Justice sebagai acuan pembaharuan hukum di Indonesia, pendekatan tersebut bertujuan merestorasi tidak hanya bagi pasien, namun juga penyedia layanan kesehatan, dan masyarakat. Sesuai regulasi tentang kesehatan di Indonesia mewajibkan mediasi apabila terjadi kesalahan atau kelalaian oleh tenaga kesehatan sebelum ditempuh jalur hukum lainnya. Metode penelitian yang digunakan adalah yuridis normatif dengan pendekatan perundang-undangan, konsep, dan perbandingan. Hasil pembahasan penelitian ini memberikan alternatif penyelesaian atau penegakkan hukum medis yang berkeadilan. Kebaharuan penelitian ini dengan melihat penerapan di beberapa negara maju dalam penyelesaian sengketa medik sebagai acuan perkembangan hukum dan gambaran penyelesaian di negara lain. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengkaji dan menganalisis upaya penyelesaian dugaan kesalahan medis melalui mediasi melalui pendekatan Restorative Justice serta perkembangan di beberapa negara seperti Amerika, Jepang dan Kanada sebagai dasar perbandingan. Penelitian ini perlu dibahas lebih dalam karena seyogyanya sengketa tersebut dilakukan mediasi melalui pendekatan Restorative Justice sebagai acuan pembaharuan hukum di Indonesia, pendekatan tersebut bertujuan merestorasi tidak hanya bagi pasien, namun juga penyedia layanan kesehatan, dan masyarakat. Sesuai regulasi tentang kesehatan di Indonesia mewajibkan mediasi apabila terjadi kesalahan atau kelalaian oleh tenaga kesehatan sebelum ditempuh jalur hukum lainnya. Metode penelitian yang digunakan adalah yuridis normatif dengan pendekatan perundang-undangan, konsep, dan perbandingan. Hasil pembahasan penelitian ini memberikan alternatif penyelesaian atau penegakkan hukum medis yang berkeadilan. Kebaharuan penelitian ini dengan melihat penerapan di beberapa negara maju dalam penyelesaian sengketa medik sebagai acuan perkembangan hukum dan gambaran penyelesaian di negara lain.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".