Gambaran Dokter yang Dihadirkan sebagai Ahli  dalam Persidangan di Pengadilan Negeri Medan  dan Pengadilan Negeri Lubuk Pakam Periode  Tahun 2018-2019

Boy Oktafianus Hasudungan; Dessy Darmayani Harianja; Sufida Tjiok

doi:10.36655/njm.v8i2.851

Boy Oktafianus Hasudungan FK Universitas HKBP Nommensen
Dessy Darmayani Harianja Departemen Ilmu Kedokteran Forensik dan Medikolegal Fakultas Kedokteran Universitas HKBP Nommensen Medan
Sufida Tjiok Departemen Patologi Anatomi Fakultas Kedokteran Universitas HKBP Nommensen Medan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.36655/njm.v8i2.851

Keywords: doctor, expert, reimbursement

Abstract

Background: The evidence of an occurrence is increasingly developing with the presence of silent witnesses, this type of witness required an expert to be able to explain the occurrence, one of which is a doctor. A doctor must meet the characteristic criteria in order for a doctor to explain a case.

Objective : This study aimed to describe characteristics of doctors who are called as experts in the Medan District Court (DC) and Lubuk Pakam DC.

Methods : This research was a descriptive qualitative study using a cross-sectional. The number of samples is 145 doctors who were selected using the total sampling method. Primary data from interviews with related doctor, and secondary data in the form of case data presenting them as experts.

Result : The results of this study showed 145 doctors, (58,1%) abuse cases in Medan DC, (38,1%) sexual abuse cases in Lubuk Pakam DC, (37,7%) male doctors in Medan DC and (33,3%) Lubuk Pakam DC, (37,7%) the age group 25-34 years in Medan DC and (33,3%) 35-44 year in Lubuk Pakam DC, (25,0%) the duration of doctors was 6-10 year in Medan DC and (23,8%) 31-35 year in Lubuk Pakam DC, Bhayangkara TK II Hospital in Medan DC and Lubuk Pakam DC, general practitioner (57,3%) in Medan DC and doctors forensic (38,1%) in Lubuk Pakam DC, 1 doctors who compensated (0,7%).

Conclusion : There were still many doctors who haven’t received reimbursement when presented as experts at the trial.

Key Words : Doctor, Expert, Reimbursement.

References

1. Jusuf Hanafiah M. Pengertian etik kedokteran dan hukum kesehatan. In: Etika kedokteran dan hukum kesehatan. 3rd ed. Jakarta: EGC; 1999.
2. Monita Y, Wahyudhi D. Peranan dokter forensik dalam pembuktian perkara pidana. 2013;6(7):127–41.
3. Nadeak LH. Kedudukan saksi ahli dalam pembuktian tindak pidana pembunuhan menurut pasal 184 KUHAP. Lex Priv. 2017;V(4):44–51.
4. Undang Undang No.8 Tahun 1981 tentang Kitab Undang - undang Hukum Acara Pidana.
5. Ohoiwutun YAT. Perlindungan hukum terhadap dokter sebagai saksi ahli dalam upaya penegakan hukum pidana [Internet]. Universitas Airlangga; 2003. Available from: http://repository.unair.ac.id/34840/
6. Utama WT. Visum rt repertum: a medicolegal report as a combination of medical knowledge and skill with legal jurisdiction. Fak Kedokt Lampung. 2014;4(8):269–75.
7. Ikatan Dokter Indonesia. Kode Etik Kedokteran Indonesia [Internet]. MKEK PBIDI. [cited 2020 Dec 1]. Available from: http://www.mkekpbidi.org/kodeki/
8. Adji OS. Etika profesional dan hukum pertanggungjawaban pidana dokter, profesi dokter. Jakarta: Erlangga; 1991.
9. Septimaulina R, Suhaimi, Mujibussalim. Pelaksanaan hak saksi/ahli mendapatkan penggantian biaya. Syiah Kuala Law J. 2018;2:89–101.
10. Badan Pusat Statistik Provinsi Sumatera Utara. Banyaknya peristiwa kejahatan/pelanggaran yang dilaporkan menurut jenis kejahatan/pelanggaran 2013- 2017 [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2021 May 1]. Available from:
https://sumut.bps.go.id/statictable/2018/11/22/1251/banyaknya-peristiwakejahatan-pelanggaran-yang-dilaporkan-menurut-jenis-kejahatan-pelanggaran-2013-2017.html