Obayuwana A O
J Natl Med Assoc. 1981 Apr;73(4):363-70.
The propriety of an immediate resolution of the malpractice feud rests on the strong thesis that law and medicine cannot be mutually exclusive if both shall continue to remain true to their traditional pledges. The common need to serve, primarily, the human being and, secondarily, the client or patient is a sufficient basis for much compromise. It should always be remembered that if there were no life there would be no rights to defend; nor would life be worth its very name, if legal rights were nil.This paper assesses some of the basic differences between law and medicine, identifies the historical and recent events that precipitated the current malpractice feud, and offers some ameliorative measures for resolving the uneasy state.
立即解决医疗事故纠纷是否恰当，取决于一个强有力的论点，即如果法律和医学都要继续忠实于它们的传统承诺，那么两者就不能相互排斥。首要服务于人类、其次服务于客户或患者的共同需求，是进行大量妥协的充分基础。应该始终记住，如果没有生命，就没有权利可捍卫；如果法律权利为零，生命也就徒有其名。本文评估了法律与医学之间的一些基本差异，确定了引发当前医疗事故纠纷的历史事件和近期事件，并提出了一些改善措施，以解决这种不安的局面。
