Last week, the Ministry of Justice organized its first public hearing to discuss criminal liability for medical malpractice. Currently, such cases are prosecuted under the Criminal Code: No attention is paid to the seriousness of an offense and everyone is treated as a criminal, which is unreasonable. Records show that one-quarter of doctors are convicted in the court of first instance, the local district court, and that the most severe sentence handed down is three years in prison, with the average being about seven months. Although 80 percent are given a deferred sentence or see it converted into a fine, there is a 20 percent risk that they will have to do time in prison. The doctors most frequently charged are those who work in surgery departments, followed by doctors in the internal medicine, obstetrics, gynecology and emergency medicine departments, in that order.
As a result, Taiwan has the highest crime rate among doctors in the world and this has led to a preference for practicing preventative medicine, increasing medical costs, tense doctor-patient relationships and a lack of new blood in the higher-risk departments.
In Taiwan, medical lawsuits are normally tried under the Criminal Code rather than the Civil Code, which is used as a tool to extract settlements and compensation. The intent of criminal law is to punish criminals, while the remedies provided by civil law are fundamentally different. The responsibility of doctors is to treat people and to save lives — they are not driven by a motivation to hurt people, but once a mistake occurs, they are prosecuted under criminal law and tried as criminals.
From the patient’s perspective, the main purpose for initiating a medical lawsuit is to lay bare the truth and to obtain compensation, but these goals are difficult to achieve based on current litigation practices. An average of 1.5 medical lawsuits are filed every day. The explosive relationship that exists between doctors and patients is highlighted by the fact that some of the ways in which medical disputes are dealt with include involving legislators, demonstrating with protest banners or carrying “coffins,” throwing eggs and burning ghost money.
In these situations, most people who file a lawsuit will file a criminal lawsuit with the intent to use the technicalities of criminal law to force a civil law settlement and damages. However, the success rate of this approach is low and seven years of prosecutorial data show that from an average of approximately 100 cases of medical malpractice in which the patient died, only about 10 percent went to court in the past three years. As for cases of malpractice resulting in patient injury, less than 6 percent were brought to court.
The problem with pursuing a medical case under criminal law to force a civil settlement is that the judge must be convinced beyond doubt before issuing a verdict. This means that the patient does not succeed in their goal of obtaining compensation by filing a criminal lawsuit to force a civil law settlement. If not convicted, the defendant will be less willing to reach an out-of-court settlement and it will also affect the amount they might be willing to settle for.
Furthermore, a criminal lawsuit places the litigation costs on the prosecutorial authorities and the government. It is also not very effective, because medical malpractice often requires several medical reviews and it often takes eight years or more to hand down a verdict. This is tough on both the patient and the doctor and it also increases the load on the court system. In addition, since doctor and patient frequently take diametrically opposed positions, it is difficult to get to the truth and damages will not be very high.
At the public hearing, the Department of Health proposed that Article 82 of the Medical Care Act (醫療法) be amended so that criminal liability will be required only for medical personnel found guilty of deliberate or clear violations of normal medical practice, and this must be deemed to be a significant violation. However, the legal framework, wording and intent remain unfamiliar to the public and medical reform groups often believe that attempts to discuss decriminalization and to amend the law are driven by doctors seeking to rid themselves of criminal responsibility. This is in fact not correct.
At the public hearing, a statement by doctors’ organizations made it clear that while they do not want to be stigmatized, they do not seek decriminalization or freedom from punishment. They want medical legal liability to be made clear and reasonable and this is based on a well-thought-out long-term vision, not self-interest.
However, amending the Medical Care Act is only a matter of correcting the current unreasonable conflict-bound relationship that exists between doctor, patient and the prosecutorial system. To improve Taiwan’s medical lawsuit system as well, as its compensation process, it is necessary to plan and establish a compensation mechanism similar to the mechanism in northern European countries. Medical mistakes are extremely common and to get to the bottom of such issues, it is very helpful to learn from those mistakes and improve the quality of medical care. Costs derived from medical disputes account for 2.4 percent of US medical expenditure. As Taiwan’s medical care is gradually socialized, the government, the National Health Insurance system, medical institutions and the public at large must share responsibility for building a new medical culture and a new compensation system.
Chiang Sheng is an attending physician in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Mackay Memorial Hospital.
Translated by Perry Svensson
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
Former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) trip to China provides a pertinent reminder of why Taiwanese protested so vociferously against attempts to force through the cross-strait service trade agreement in 2014 and why, since Ma’s presidential election win in 2012, they have not voted in another Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) candidate. While the nation narrowly avoided tragedy — the treaty would have put Taiwan on the path toward the demobilization of its democracy, which Courtney Donovan Smith wrote about in the Taipei Times in “With the Sunflower movement Taiwan dodged a bullet” — Ma’s political swansong in China, which included fawning dithyrambs