Urologist and former Fu Jen Catholic University president Chiang Han-sun (江漢聲) was stabbed by a 30-year-old man at the university’s hospital in New Taipei City on Tuesday. The suspect, surnamed Tseng (曾), reportedly entered Chiang’s office and attacked him with a utility knife before being restrained by hospital security.
Since 2009, acts of violence against medical personnel have been on the rise, prompting the Legislative Yuan to pass amendments to the Medical Care Act (醫療法) in 2014, establishing new penalties for acts of violence committed in medical facilities to “ensure the safety of medical personnel when they practice medicine.”
However, the clumsy and outdated drafting techniques employed by legislators — in addition to their adherence to the traditional belief that medical professionals should be of noble moral character and not quarrel with patients — the amendments ended up creating more problems than they solved, with some provisions having become all but useless.
Article 106 of the act states that “persons who damage the life saving equipment in medical care institutions or other similar places and consequently endanger the life, body or health of others are subject to imprisonment for no more than three years, detention or a fine of no more than NT$300,000.”
However, Article 352 of the Criminal Code stipulates that same penalty for destroying or damaging another person’s document and causing injury to the public or another. Setting the same statutory penalty for damaging life-supporting medical equipment and merely damaging a document clearly contravenes the principle of proportionality.
Furthermore, Article 106 of the Medical Care Act also stipulates that “persons who hinder medical personnel or emergency medical services personnel from carrying out medical practices or emergency medical services by means of violence, coercion, intimidation or other illegal methods are subject to imprisonment for no more than three years, or in addition thereto, a fine of no more than NT$300,000.”
If the offense causes the death of medical personnel or emergency medical services personnel, then the offender is subject to “imprisonment for life or no less than seven years.” If it results in serious injury to medical personnel or emergency medical services personnel, then the punishment is imprisonment for no less than three years, but no more than 10 years.
However, this provision is identical to that outlined by Article 277 of the Criminal Code, which concerns the offense of causing injury to another — it does not impose any additional statutory penalties. If legal protections for medical personnel and emergency medical services personnel are not designed from the perspective of safeguarding their professional practice and occupational safety, they risk diminishing healthcare workers’ motivation to remain in the field.
More importantly, Taiwan has over the past few years faced a mass exodus of medical professionals. If the law fails to promptly respond, frontline healthcare workers would be pushed into even deeper hardship, which would ultimately undermine the public’s right to health.
The provisions in Article 106 of the Medical Care Act that allow for detention and fines in lieu of imprisonment for damaging life-saving equipment in medical care institutions should be removed to prevent excessively light penalties that would weaken the law’s deterrent effect. For the provision that addresses the use of violence, coercion, intimidation or other illegal methods to hinder medical personnel or emergency medical services personnel from carrying out medical practices or emergency medical services, the maximum statutory penalty should be raised from three years to either five or seven years of imprisonment.
This would create a clear distinction between Article 304 of the Criminal Code — which stipulates three years of imprisonment for ordinary violence or threats — and provide healthcare workers with special legal protections. Likewise, the penalties for the same offense resulting in death should also be increased.
Cultivating a positive medical environment depends not only on amending regulations, but also on establishing mutual respect and joint effort between medical personnel and their patients.
Chao Hsuey-wen is an assistant professor and holds a doctorate in law from Fu Jen Catholic University.
Translated by Kyra Gustavsen
Taiwanese pragmatism has long been praised when it comes to addressing Chinese attempts to erase Taiwan from the international stage. “Taipei” and the even more inaccurate and degrading “Chinese Taipei,” imposed titles required to participate in international events, are loathed by Taiwanese. That is why there was huge applause in Taiwan when Japanese public broadcaster NHK referred to the Taiwanese Olympic team as “Taiwan,” instead of “Chinese Taipei” during the opening ceremony of the Tokyo Olympics. What is standard protocol for most nations — calling a national team by the name their country is commonly known by — is impossible for
India is not China, and many of its residents fear it never will be. It is hard to imagine a future in which the subcontinent’s manufacturing dominates the world, its foreign investment shapes nations’ destinies, and the challenge of its economic system forces the West to reshape its own policies and principles. However, that is, apparently, what the US administration fears. Speaking in New Delhi last week, US Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau warned that “we will not make the same mistakes with India that we did with China 20 years ago.” Although he claimed the recently agreed framework
The Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR) on Wednesday last week announced it is launching investigations into 16 US trading partners, including Taiwan, under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 to determine whether they have engaged in unfair trade practices, such as overproduction. A day later, the agency announced a separate Section 301 investigation into 60 economies based on the implementation of measures to prohibit the importation of goods produced with forced labor. Several of Taiwan’s main trading rivals — including China, Japan, South Korea and the EU — also made the US’ investigation list. The announcements come
Taiwan is not invited to the table. It never has been, but this year, with the Philippines holding the ASEAN chair, the question that matters is no longer who gets formally named, it is who becomes structurally indispensable. The “one China” formula continues to do its job. It sets the outer boundary of official diplomatic speech, and no one in the region has a serious interest in openly challenging it. However, beneath the surface, something is thickening. Trade corridors, digital infrastructure, artificial intelligence (AI) cooperation, supply chains, cross-border investment: The connective tissue between Taiwan and ASEAN is quietly and methodically growing
RSS