Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"Penelitian ini menganalisis kewajiban dokter dalam menjaga rahasia medis pasien dan konsekuensi hukum atas pelanggaran tersebut di media sosial, dengan fokus pada kasus dokter di Indonesia. Latar belakang menunjukkan bahwa fenomena ini meningkat seiring dengan penggunaan media sosial dalam komunikasi kesehatan. Pembukaan rahasia medis melanggar Pasal 177 dan Pasal 274 UU No. 17 Tahun 2023 tentang Kesehatan serta Kode Etik Kedokteran Indonesia (KODEKI). Penelitian menggunakan bentuk penelitian doktrinal dan menemukan bahwa pembukaan rahasia medis dapat dibenarkan dalam kondisi tertentu, seperti izin pasien atau ketentuan hukum. Kasus dr. J, yang membagikan informasi pasien Covid-19 tanpa izin, mencerminkan pelanggaran serius terhadap KODEKI dan UU Kesehatan, berpotensi mengakibatkan sanksi administratif atau pencabutan izin praktik. Kasus dr. S yang melakukan siaran langsung persalinan tanpa persetujuan juga menunjukkan lemahnya penegakan sanksi di Indonesia. Di sisi lain, dr. R di USA menghadapi konsekuensi berat setelah menyiarkan prosedur bedah tanpa izin pasien, termasuk denda dan pencabutan izin praktik. Perbandingan kasus ini menyoroti perbedaan penegakan hukum antara Indonesia dan USA, dimana USA menerapkan sanksi lebih ketat. Penelitian merekomendasikan pembaruan aturan terkait pembukaan rekam medis dalam situasi darurat, peningkatan program pelatihan etika bagi SDM kesehatan, dan penegakan sanksi yang lebih transparan untuk melindungi hak privasi pasien. Dalam era media sosial, pemahaman dan kepatuhan terhadap kewajiban menjaga kerahasiaan informasi medis menjadi kunci dalam praktik kedokteran yang etis dan profesional.

---

This research analyzes doctors' obligations to maintain patient medical confidentiality and the legal consequences of breaching it on social media, focusing on cases involving doctors in Indonesia. The background highlights that this phenomenon has increased alongside the use of social media in healthcare communication. Disclosing medical secrets violates Articles 177 and 274 of Law No. 17 of 2023 on Health, as well as the principles in the Indonesian Medical Code of Ethics (KODEKI). The research uses doctrinal research and found that disclosing medical information can be justified under certain conditions, such as patient consent or legal provisions. The case of dr. J, who shared Covid-19 patient information without permission, represents a serious violation of KODEKI and the Health Law, potentially resulting administrative sanctions or license revocation. Also, the case of dr. S, who live-streamed a childbirth without consent, highlights weak enforcement of sanctions in Indonesia. By contrast, dr. R in the United States of America faced severe consequences, including fines and license revocation, after broadcasting a surgical procedure without patient consent. This comparison highlights differences in legal enforcement between Indonesia and the U.S.A, where U.S.A imposing stricter penalties. This research recommends update of regulations related to the disclosure of medical records in emergency situations, enhancing ethics training programs for healthcare workers, and implementing more transparent enforcement of sanctions to protect patients' privacy rights. In this social media era, understanding and adhering obligations regarding medical confidentiality are the key to maintain ethical and professional medical practices. "

"ABSTRACTSkripsi ini membahas tentang tanggung jawab dokter, rumah sakit dan pemerintah apabila terjadi pembiaran medik dalam keadaan gawat darurat yang dialami oleh pasien yang didasarkan atas literatur, perundang-undangan, hasil wawancara dengan dokter, direktur rumah sakit dan pemerintah, dengan analisis putusan No. 38/Pdt.G/2016/PN.Bna. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode penelitian dengan bentuk penelitian yuridis normatif dan tipe penelitian deskriptif dengan analisis data secara kualitatif yang mana penelitian ini menjelaskan mengenai klasifikasi dan pengaturan keadaan gawat darurat menurut Hukum Kesehatan, dan tanggung jawab Rumah Sakit, Dokter dan Pemerintah dalam pelayanan gawat darurat serta menganalisis tanggung jawab hukum Rumah Sakit, Dokter, dan Pemerintah apabila terjadi pembiaran medik terhadap pasien gawat darurat dengan analisis Putusan No. 38/Pdt.G/2016/PN.Bna. Hasil penelitian ini adalah 1) di Indonesia sudah dikenal klasifikasi penanganan gawat darurat dan pengaturan gawat darurat sudah cukup baik, 2) tanggung jawab pelayanan gawat darurat oleh dokter diatur dalam UU No. 29/2004, Rumah Sakit diatur dalam UU No. 44/2009 serta Pemeritah memiliki tanggung jawab dalam pembinaan dan pengawasan terhadap dokter dan rumah sakit, 3) penulis tidak sepenuhnya sependapat dengan putusan Majelis Hakim No. 38/Pdt.G/2016/PN.Bna.Penulis menyarankan  kepada Rumah Sakit untuk memperketat dalam mengawasi dan mempekerjakan dokter, kepada Pemerintah untuk melakukan judicial review Pasal 190 UU No. 36/2009, kepada Pemerintah untuk membuat peraturan pelaksana atau penjelasan Pasal 42 ayat (2) UU No. 44/2009, dan kepada Pemerintah dalam tugas mengurus dan mengatur untuk melakukan penegakan hukum terhadap tanggung jawab yang dimiliki oleh Pemerintah.

---

ABSTRACTThis thesis discusses the responsibility of doctors, hospitals, and the government when medical abondonment occurs in emergency situations experienced by patients based on lit literature, legislation, interviews with hospitals, doctors and government, with an verdict analysis of No. 38/Pdt.G/2016/PN.Bna. This study uses a research method with normative juridical research and descriptive research type with qualitative data analysis in which this study describes the classification and regulation of emergency conditions according to Health Law, and the responsibilities of Hospitals, Doctors and Government in emergency services, and also analyze the legal responsibilities of Hospitals, Doctors and Governent if medical abondonment occurs to emergency patients with an verdict analysis of No. 38/Pdt.G/2016/PN.Bna. The results of this study are 1) that in Indonesia it is well known that the classification of emergency treatment and emergency regulation is quite good, 2) the responsibility of emergency services by doctors is regulated in Law No. 29/2004, Hospitals are regulated in Law No. 44/2009 and the Government has responsibility in fostering and supervising doctors and hospitals, 3) the author does not fully agree with the verdict of Judges No. 38/Pdt.G/2016/PN.Bna. The author recommends to the Hospital to tighten in supervising and hiring doctors, to the Government to conduct a judicial review of Article 190 of Law No. 36/2009, to the Government to make implementing regulations or explanation of Article 42 paragraph (2) of Law No. 44/2009, and to the Government in the task of managing and regulating to enforce the law on responsibilities held by the Government."

"Background: Based on our knowledge, the study of gastrointestinal reflux disease (GERD) among certain profession has never been conducted. The aim of this study is to determine the prevalence and risk factors of GERD among Indonesian doctors.Methods: A consecutive study involving 515 doctors was conducted in October 2015.The GerdQ score was used to the diagnosis of GERD and determined its impact on daily life. All possible risk factors were also analyzed.Results: A total of 515 subjects completed the questionnaire. The mean age of them was 41.37±11.92 years old. Fifty-five percent of them were male and 60.6% general practitioners. The prevalence of GERD was 27.4% of which 21.0% was had GERD with low impact on daily life, and 6.4% was GERD with high impact on daily life. The statistically significant risk factors of GERD was found in age >50 y.o (p = 0.002; OR 2.054), BMI >30kg/m2 (p = 0.016; OR 2.53), and smokers (p = 0.031; OR 1.982). Sex and education level were not found significant statistically as the risk factors of GERD.Conclusions: The prevalence of GERD among Indonesian physician was 27.4%. We found that age over 50 y.o, obesity and smoking habit were the risk factors of GERD in Indonesian doctors."