Patient Disputes That The Jurisprudence Of The Allocation Of Responsibilities Thinking

Medical Dispute is one of the hottest focuses in our society. How to allocate the burden of proof between doctors and patients legitimately showing the equity and justice in law has been a hot topic in academic research. The allocation of burden of proof in medical tort has its specificity. There is an information gap between doctors and patients, which makes the patients be a weak position. For protecting the patients, shifting the burden of proof between doctors and patients used to been put into practice since 2002, which forced medical establishments to prove the elements of faults and causations. It was disappointed that the allocation above made medical institutions take defensive medical practices which ultimately violated the interests of patients. According to the "Tort Liability Law of the People's Republic of China" which has been implemented since July 1st,2010, patients are charged of proving all the burden of proof. It is disappointed that there are no rules to lighten the burden of proof for patients who are in a weak position in this Act, which is obviously contrary to the pursuit of justice and equality.This article discussed how to allocate the burden of proof in medical tort from the perspective of Jurisprudence. According to introducing the new concept "medical malpractice liability" which was authenticated by "Tort Liability Law" at the first time, describing the basic theory of distribution of burden of proof in medical disputes and explaining principles of burden of proof in medical disputes in our country, it analyzed the specificity and the multiplex value orientation in legislation of the allocation of burden of proof in medical disputes in details. It is concluded that we should construct and improve the system of the allocation of burden of proof in medical disputes by five values which are consistency of rights and responsibilities, consistency of procedural justice and substantial justice, principle of benefit, principle of faith and protection of human rights including the right of life and health, as well as three evaluation principles which are humanity, impartiality, and independent.