A Comparative Study of Mediation of Medical Disputes and Administrative Mediation

Abstract

This qualitative research aimed to: (1) examine the general concepts and principles of medical dispute mediation and administrative dispute mediation; (2) compare the differences in the laws, formats, procedures and methods of mediation in medical disputes and administrative disputes, and (3) propose guidelines and promote the application of legal mediation processes in dispute resolution. The study employed documentary research and field data collection, using purposive sampling of 12 participants. Data were collected through in-depth interviews using a semi-structured interview form covering five key issues: understanding and roles of mediators, understanding of medical cases, mediation processes, successes and obstacles, and recommendations. The key informants consisted of experts in medical dispute mediation, experts in administrative dispute mediation, and scholars in peace studies or dispute mediation. The content analysis revealed that both types of mediation serve as alternative dispute resolution mechanisms facilitated by a mediator, emphasizing the voluntary participation of both parties and prioritizing process over fault determination. However, they differed in terms of the parties involved, the nature of the disputes, and systemic impacts. In addition, the laws governing the two types of mediation displayed clear distinctions in legal strictness, the roles of responsible agencies, and the formality of procedures. In conclusion, medical dispute mediation tends to be flexible and relatively informal, whereas administrative dispute mediation is a more formal process operating under the supervision and regulation of the Administrative Court. Therefore, the application of mediation process in accordance with legal procedures is an important approach to increasing the efficiency, credibility, and fairness of the mediation process.