———基于《侵权责任法》的视角分析

肖柳珍

【摘 要】 《侵权责任法》实施后我国并没有形成统一的医疗损害鉴定制度。 江苏和北京高级法院分别对医疗损害鉴定的具体内容及部分具体鉴定制度进行了明确规定。二者最大的区别在于对医学会鉴定和法医鉴定这两种鉴定模式的优先选择不同。江苏模式优先选择医学会组织的医疗损害鉴定，能够从专业的角度保障医疗损害鉴定工作的完成，但建议加大力度完善医疗损害鉴定的监督机制及省属范围内的异地鉴定制度。北京模式则相对倾向医疗损害司法鉴定。建议完善医疗损害鉴定人的准入制度及医疗损害司法鉴定程序并构建医疗损害司法鉴定专家库。医疗损害司法鉴定制度构建过程中，建议遵循医疗损害鉴定统一性、专业性、标准化及监督的原则。

【关键词】 侵权责任法；医疗损害鉴定；比较研究

【中图分类号】 D915.13

【文献标识码】 A

【文章编号】 1674-1226（2011）03-0290-09

Comparative Study of Medical Injury Identification System in Jiangsu Model and Beijing Model———Based on the implementation of “Tort Liability Act”. Xiao Liuzhen. Lecturer, School of Humanity and Management,Southern Medical University, Guangzhou 510515, Guangdong

【Abstract】 After the implementation of Tort Liability Act, there is still no unified medical injury identification system emerging in China. The High People’s Courts of Beijing and Jiangsu respectively regulate the specific contents of medical injury identification and parts of specific identification systems. The biggest difference between these two models lies in the choice of priority. Jiangsu model prefers to the medical injury identification organized by medical association, which can guarantee, from professional perspective, to complete the basic task of medical injury identification. With regard to this model, the paper suggests, great efforts be taken to improve the monitoring mechanism and the remote identification within the province. The Beijing mode relatively tends to judicial identification for medical injury. . This mode proposes to improve the access system of expert in medical injury identification and the procedures for medical injury identification. It should establish a database of experts in medical injury identification. In the construction of medical injury identification system, we should follow the principles of unity, professionalism, standardization and supervision.

【Key Words】 Tort Liability Act， Medical injury identification， Comparative Study