透视医疗纠纷——辨析医患双方的权利和义务

发生医疗纠纷的一个重要原因是医患双方各自站在自己的立场上,维护自己的权利而产生的争端。由于我国卫生法制的滞后,患者被作为消费者伸张权利逐步成为趋势。但我国的医疗卫生事业的性质决定患者不能与消费者等同。医患双方应在更好的游戏规则下协调关系,减少纠纷。     

医疗事故处理法律亟待统一规范

目前在我国医疗工作的实践中,医疗纠纷呈上升趋势。然而,解决和处理医疗纠纷与医疗事故的法律、法规尚不移规范统一。随着我国法制的逐步健全,法律,法规的不断完善,医疗事故处理的法律亟待统一规范,以利于全社会遵法,守法,执法的实现。     

ADR解决中国医患纠纷的可行性分析:医患双方的调查

目前我国医患关系紧张,医患纠纷解决机制是行政和司法为主的机制。有无更科学、合理、有效的解决办法。通过调查和理论分析,认为ADR应该成为我国解决医患纠纷的主要机制。协商是医生和患者最愿意采取的方式,仲裁和调解也是可行的,应该是我国医疗事故处理的有效补充。     

当前医患纠纷解决模式的法律与道德评价

我国医患纠纷的最终解决是通过传统的民事诉讼途径,然而,这种模式并不符合医疗案件本身的特点。从法律和道德的角度而言,我们必须对医疗诉讼的制度设计重新进行反思,并在此基础上进行变革。     

"零缺陷"与医疗纠纷的防范

根据"零缺陷"质量管理的理念以及如何应用这一理念来防范医疗纠纷,从医疗实践、传统观念等方面进行分析,得出医疗机构只有正确的应用"零缺陷"质量管理,才能最有效地防范医疗纠纷.     

建立风险管理机制防范医疗纠纷的探讨

"医疗风险无处不在".针对医疗纠纷的起因及医疗风险管理的办法阐述了国内外医疗风险管理的现状,提出医疗风险管理的建议,使医疗风险管理规范化、制度化、社会化.     

Facilitating 'Perspectival Reciprocity' in Medication: Some Reflections on a Failed Case

Mediation services arise in contexts where the notions of community cohesion, relationship integrity and social order are valued over their opposites (disorder, dissent, conflict etc). Yet it is not at all clear whether and how the mediation of conflict works to re-establish harmony or consensus. Indeed it is not at all clear that mediation is always effective or just. It has even been suggested that some conflicts (e.g. work-place, commercial and sexual assault) are either not resolved or not resolved justly by mediation. On the other hand, advocates maintain that mediation can bring resolution and repair to ongoing relationships, promote community harmony, and empower people to be self-determining in the construction and maintenance of their resolutions. Whether mediation is adjudged positively or not, all mediation is instantiated in, indeed performed through, talk. In this paper I examine mediations from an Australian mediation program, and use Conversation Analysis to expose the practical methods by which mediators achieve consensus between disputants. I then examine a case in which mediation has failed to produce the sought-after consensus, and explore one way of understanding the failure of mediation in that case.     

两种人本心理学的辩论

该文沿着JohnRowan(1989)提出是否有两种人本心理学这一问题 ,追溯了人本心理学内部分歧的由来 ,即罗洛·梅与罗杰斯在 2 0世纪 80年代初有关人性问题的争论 ,以及 1986年罗洛·梅对超个人心理学的批评。文章着重介绍了维尔伯 (KenWilber)对这一领域的分歧所做的全面分析 ,指出了两种人本心理学在一些基本问题上的不同立场。这两种心理学就是以罗洛·梅为代表的存在主义取向的人本心理学和以马斯洛、罗杰斯、维尔伯为代表的从自我实现走向自我超越的人本心理学     

Using a dialectical scientific brief in peer review

This paper presents a framework that editors, peer reviewers, and authors can use to identify and resolve efficiently disputes that arise during peer review in scientific journals. The framework is called a scientific dialectical brief. In this framework, differences among authors and reviewers are formatted into specific assertions and the support each party provides for its position. A literature review suggests that scientists use five main types of support; empirical data, reasoning, speculation, feelings, and status. It is suggested that the scientific dialectical brief format can streamline the review process by facilitating rapid differentiation between stronger and weaker support, so that valuable time can be focused on the better-substantiated claims. The paper concludes with some suggestions for implementation. The author researches, lectures and publishes in the area of physical and social aspects of environmental quality. He is also a practicing architect. This paper is based on a presentation at a workshop, “Advances in Peer Review Research”, American Association for the Advancement of Science Meeting, Baltimore, MD, February 9, 1996.