Arnezul Achmad Satriawan, Klarisa Tabita Khenina Tarigan, Bombong Munif Musyaffa’ Priambodo

Tanggung Gugat Dokter Bedah yang Menggunakan Robotic Telesurgery (Studi Kasus Lembaga Pelayanan Kesehatan Digital Telemedisin)

Introduction

Tanggung gugat dokter bedah yang menggunakan robotic telesurgery (studi kasus lembaga pelayanan kesehatan digital telemedisin). Analisis tanggung gugat dokter bedah dalam praktik robotic telesurgery menurut hukum positif Indonesia, menyoroti kekosongan regulasi dan perlunya pembaruan kerangka legal.

Abstract

Perkembangan teknologi kedokteran, khususnya dalam bidang telemedisin telah memungkinkan praktik bedah dilakukan dari jarak jauh dengan bantuan sistem robotik. Namun, inovasi ini juga menimbulkan diskursus hukum baru mengenai siapa yang bertanggung gugat apabila terjadi kerugian terhadap pasien. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis tanggung gugat dokter bedah dalam praktik medis dengan bantuan sistem robotik dari perspektif hukum positif Indonesia. Dengan menggunakan metode penelitian yuridis normatif serta pendekatan kasus, perundang-undangan dan konseptual, penelitian ini mengkaji sejauh mana sistem hukum saat ini dapat mengakomodasi perkembangan teknologi medis. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa meskipun robot bukan merupakan subjek hukum namun tindakan medis yang dilakukan melalui sistem robotik tetap berada di bawah kendali fungsional dokter bedah. Oleh karena itu, dokter bedah sebagai operator utama tetap dapat dimintai tanggung jawab hukum atas kerugian yang timbul dari tindakan tersebut. Di sisi lain, ketentuan Pasal 290 Undang-Undang Nomor 17 Tahun 2023 tentang Kesehatan belum mengatur secara eksplisit mengenai hubungan hukum antara tenaga medis dan teknologi medis non-subjek hukum seperti robot. Dengan demikian, diperlukan pembaruan kerangka hukum yang membedakan antara pelimpahan kewenangan kepada subjek hukum dan penggunaan instrumen teknologi dalam pelayanan medis. Penelitian ini telah memberikan kontribusi normatif awal untuk menjawab kekosongan hukum dalam praktik kedokteran berbasis teknologi tinggi.

Review

This paper tackles a highly pertinent and contemporary issue concerning the legal accountability of surgeons employing robotic telesurgery within the Indonesian legal framework. As medical technology rapidly advances, particularly in telemedicine and robotic surgical systems, the traditional notions of liability are challenged. The study effectively identifies this nascent legal discourse, setting out to meticulously analyze the surgeon's responsibility under Indonesian positive law. Utilizing a robust normative juridical methodology, complemented by case, statutory, and conceptual approaches, the research provides a timely examination of how existing legal provisions grapple with these technological innovations. The clear objective and methodical approach position this study as a valuable contribution to the evolving field of health law. The core findings of the research offer crucial insights into this complex area. The paper robustly asserts that while a robot itself is not a legal subject, the medical acts performed through robotic systems remain under the functional control of the operating surgeon. Consequently, the surgeon, as the primary operator, continues to bear legal responsibility for any damages arising from such procedures. A significant contribution of this study is its identification of a crucial legislative gap: Article 290 of Law Number 17 Year 2023 on Health does not explicitly regulate the legal relationship between medical professionals and non-legal subject medical technology like robots. This highlights the urgent need for a refined legal framework that clearly distinguishes between the delegation of authority to a legal subject and the utilization of technological instruments in medical services, providing a vital "normative initial contribution" to address this legal vacuum. Overall, this research is a commendable effort to navigate the intricate legal landscape emerging from high-tech medical practices. Its strength lies in its ability to pinpoint an inadequately addressed area of law and propose a clear direction for reform, thereby offering practical implications for policymakers, legal practitioners, and healthcare providers in Indonesia. While the abstract points to the surgeon's liability as the primary focus, future research could potentially expand to consider the distributed liabilities involving technology manufacturers, software developers, and telemedicine platform providers. Nevertheless, this paper lays foundational groundwork, offering a critical starting point for developing comprehensive legal frameworks that ensure patient safety and accountability in the era of advanced medical technology.

Full Text

Comments

You need to be logged in to post a comment.