投递稿件医院被注销 叫停后谁为“肖氏手术”埋单

卫生部虽然有了回复，但受害者仍然找不到对象讨说法：郑州市卫生局明知神源医院被起诉，但依然批准该医院注销，他们恐怕也负有监管不力的责任。由此可见，事前的审核，事后的监督，卫生部门的防线都失灵了。

　　去年，肖传国雇凶伤害方舟子案发之后，\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"肖氏手术\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"受害者向卫生部反映意见，要求叫停\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"肖氏手术\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"、赔偿损失。今年1月22日，他们收到卫生部信访处的书面答复：建议他们向郑州神源泌尿外科医院所在地的郑州卫生局\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"投诉\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"，或向法院起诉。但是该医院已于去年8月就被当地卫生部门注销，患者的维权路越发艰难。

　　肖传国从\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"准诺贝尔奖得主\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"变身阶下囚，\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"肖氏手术\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"从先进的成熟的手术，变身为拿患者做\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"试验\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"，其中峰回路转，实在像一部小说，但卫生部门所应坚守的无非是依法行政、人命关天的原则，若守住这条底线，问题本不难解决。

　　但是，肖传国把\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"安全性、有效性在循证医学上证据不足\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"（去年11月卫生部专家的论证结论）的手术，在武汉、郑州等多家医院做了上千例！按我国《医疗技术临床应用管理办法》的规定，\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"肖氏手术\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"属于\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"安全性、有效性尚需经规范的临床试验研究进一步验证\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"的治疗，属于第三类医疗技术。该《办法》第十四条规定：属于第三类的医疗技术首次应用于临床前，必须经过卫生部组织的安全性、有效性临床试验研究、论证及伦理审查。

　　那么，\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"肖氏手术\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"在临床应用之前，是不是得到了卫生部组织的专家审核？原本应严格限制、谨慎评估的临床试验，怎么变成大规模的\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"成熟\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"手术？如果通过了审核，那些认可\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"肖氏手术\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"的专家该负什么责任？

　　现在给受害者的答复是：根据《侵权责任法》的规定，医疗事故由医疗机构承担赔偿责任，所以患者要么要求当地卫生局调查处理，要么起诉维权。\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"在当事医疗机构被注销的情况下，可向登记注册该医疗机构的法人单位追究相关责任。\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"

　　但事情未必如此简单。在责任主体被注销之后，由谁来承担责任的问题，不是一个医疗行政问题，卫生部门的一纸回复未必说了算。

　　这个棘手的问题背后是我国医疗机构管理、运营制度的长期落后，甚至可以说政府主导的、计划经济味道浓厚的管理模式，严重影响着医患矛盾的解决。我国的《公司法》等法律中，经营主体被注销之后，有明确的公告、债权债务的登记制度，能妥善解决纠纷。

　　但医疗机构并不适用这些市场经济规则，相反，我国现行的《医疗机构管理条例》和卫生部的《医疗机构管理条例实施细则》都是1994年公布的，当时没有如今的多元所有制的医疗机构，\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"注销\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"的规定也很笼统，没有考虑到潜在的医疗风险和患者权益。