Vol 13 (2021): November
Recent Cases

Analysis of the Decision of the Kotabumi District Court Decision Number: (109/PID.SUS/2019/PN) regarding Nursing Personnel Who Perform Operations without Delegation of Authority from Doctors
Analisis Putusan Pengadilan Negeri Kotabumi No: (109/PID.SUS/2019/PN) tentang Tenaga Keperawatan yang Melakukan Operasi tanpa Pelimpahan Wewenang dari Dokter


Anis Fitria
Universitas Muhammadiyah Sidoarjo, Indonesia
Emy Rosnawati
Universitas Muhammadiyah Sidoarjo, Indonesia *

(*) Corresponding Author
Picture in here are illustration from public domain image or provided by the author, as part of their works
Published November 2, 2021
Keywords
  • Court Decision,
  • Nurse,
  • Delegation of Authority
How to Cite
Fitria, A., & Rosnawati, E. (2021). Analysis of the Decision of the Kotabumi District Court Decision Number: (109/PID.SUS/2019/PN) regarding Nursing Personnel Who Perform Operations without Delegation of Authority from Doctors . Indonesian Journal of Law and Economics Review, 13, 10.21070/ijler.v13i0.739. https://doi.org/10.21070/ijler.v13i0.739

Abstract

This study aims to determine the juridical analysis of the decision of the Kotabumi District Court with the number 109/PID. SUS/2019/PN KBU. The research method that the author uses is a normative juridical approach using a case approach or commonly known as a case approuch. The conclusion in this study explains that the decision of the Kotabumi District Court with the number . 109/PID. SUS/2019/PN KBU is appropriate because the delegation of authority from doctors to nurses as described in Article 29 paragraph 1 letter e of the Nursing Law is not merely in writing, but the delegation has been included in the SIP. therefore jumraini was found guilty because he was proven to have violated article 46 paragraph (1) and was subject to administrative sanctions.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

  1. soerjono soekanto, “KEDOKTERAN,” vol. 10, no. 1, p. 5, 1983.
  2. yulianita Henny, “BAB I PENDAHULUAN A . Latar Belakang Penelitian,” p. 44, 2011.
  3. S. Sibarani, “Aspek Perlindungan Hukum Pasien Korban Malpraktik Dilihat Dari Sudut Pandang Hukum Di Indonesia,” Justitia Pax, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 1–22, 2017, doi: 10.24002/jep.v33i1.1417.
  4. P. Sri, Kedudukan hokum prawat dalam upaya pelayanan kesehatan dirumah sakit. jakarta, 2006.
  5. Undang- Undang RI, “Undang-undang RI No. 38,” TENTANG KEPERAWATAN, no. 10, pp. 2–4, 2014.
  6. amiruddin dan zainal asikin, Pengantar Metode Penelitian Hukum – Amiruddin & Zainal Asikin, Edisi revi. 2007.
  7. N. Zakiyah, “kode etik keperawatan,” vol. 148, pp. 148–162.
  8. k Barhaspati, “Pertanggungjawaban Pidana Terhadap Malpraktek Yang Dilakukan Oleh Bidan,” J. kerta wicara, vol. 9, no. 7, pp. 1–11, 2020, [Online]. Available: http://repository.um-palembang.ac.id/id/eprint/1519/1/SKRIPSI1301-1801062816.pdf.
  9. A. Mayssara A. Abo Hassanin Supervised, “‘Analisis Hukum MalPraktik Perawat Jumraini’, Fakultas Hukum Universitas Malahayati Bandar Lampung, Bandar Lampung, hal 70-71,” Pap. Knowl. . Towar. a Media Hist. Doc., pp. 62–75, 2014.
  10. Republik Indonesia, “Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 36 Tahun 2014 Tentang Tenaga Kesehatan,” Menteri Hukum dan Hak Asasi Manusia Republik Indonesia. 2014.