<![CDATA[The implementation of medical practice is an integral part of fulfilling the human right to health guaranteed by the constitution and requires legal certainty for both patients and medical personnel. In its development, medical disputes often lead to criminal charges due to alleged malpractice, as reflected in the case of dr. Elisabeth Susana, who performed high-risk aesthetic procedures without specific competence. This study aims to analyze the application of the theory of fault and the legal factors that formed the basis for the Supreme Court's consideration in overturning the first-instance acquittal and imposing a prison sentence. The research method used is normative legal with a qualitative approach, through an analysis of Supreme Court Decision Number 233 K/Pid.Sus/2021 and related laws and regulations. The results of the study indicate that the criminal liability of the doctor in this case is based on the fulfillment of the element of gross negligence (culpa lata) because the action was performed outside the limits of competence and without fulfilling the obligation of informed consent. The Supreme Court emphasized that the lack of expert certification and the disregard for standard operating procedures are forms of professional negligence that cannot be categorized as an ordinary medical risk. The research conclusion confirms that the criminal accountability of doctors heavily depends on compliance with professional standards and the protection of the patient's right to autonomy through adequate information.]]>
Copyrights © 2026
