Research On Judicial Recognition Of "Serious Irresponsibility" Of Crime Of Medical Accident

As a conviction for medical malpractice,“serious irresponsibility” has the meaning of accurately determining the crime,clarifying the responsibility of civil medical damage and the boundary of criminal responsibility.However,due to the complexity of medical technology,the ambiguity of criminal norms,and the differences in the legal quality of judicial practitioners,there are cases of “serious irresponsibility” in judicial practice,which hinders the accurate identification of medical malpractices and affects the judgment of the criminal responsibility of the responsible subject.In view of this,the status quo of the "serious irresponsibility" of medical malpractice crimes is investigated,and then the shortcomings are found and the improvement strategy is found.It has the positive significance of clarifying the connotation of the "serious irresponsibility" requirements,perfecting the application of norms,and standardizing the judicial authorization operation.Except for the introduction and conclusion,this article is divided into three parts,about 30,000 words.The specific contents are summarized as follows:The first part is the investigation of the status quo of the “serious irresponsible” judicial determination of the crime of medical malpractice.Through the inductive analysis of the judgment documents of the collected cases of medical malpractice,it can be seen that the criminal practitioners have different interpretations of the meaning of “serious irresponsibility”,and the evidence of the requirements depends on the actual results and there is a contempt for subjective negligence.The situation.At the same time,judicial practice is based on the judicial interpretation of criminal law as the main referee norm and the appraisal opinion as the main evidence.The second part is about the practical problem of the judicial determination of "serious irresponsibility" of the crime of medical malpractice.Based on the investigation of the current situation of judicial identification,we can see that there are four practical problems in the interpretation of the connotation of "serious irresponsibility".They are the deviations in the interpretation of the connotation of "serious irresponsibility",the lack of clear definition of medical behavior and the scope of responsibility of medical subjects,the lack of clear criteria for judging "serious irresponsibility",and the lack of effective communication between criminal justice and the medical field.There is an urgent need to find the right way to deal with justice and the medical field.There is an urgent need to find the right way to deal with the problem.The third part is the normative path of "serious irresponsibility" judicial cognizance of the crime of medical malpractice.On the basis of exploring the original legislative intent of the crime of medical malpractice,through the comparative analysis of the conviction elements of the crime of illegally practicing medicine and the connotation comparison of medical negligence from the perspective of criminal-civil overlapping,it should be made clear that the essential nature of "serious irresponsibility" should be an important element of unity of subjective and objective,and its connotation is that the main body of medical responsibility violates its duty because of serious negligence.The scope of medical behavior includes therapeutic or non-therapeutic actions performed by qualified practitioners.As for the scope of responsibility of the main body,we should take the existing provisions of medical norms and routines as the formal judgment criteria,and take the force of medical behavior as the substantive judgment criteria to make a comprehensive judgment.In addition,it is necessary to refine and improve the criteria for the determination of judicial interpretation by using the theory of "substantial danger" negligence.It is also necessary to establish a dynamic communication mechanism in the field of criminal justice and medical treatment in order to break down the obstacles of identification caused by disciplinary barriers.