Rahayu, Virda Nur (2025) TANGGUNG JAWAB REFRAKSIONIS OPTISIEN DALAM PENYELENGGARAAN OPTIKAL DIHUBUNGKAN DENGAN PERATURAN MENTERI KESEHATAN REPUBLIK INDONESIA NOMOR 1 TAHUN 2016 TENTANG PENYELENGGARAAN OPTIKAL DI KOTA SERANG. S1 thesis, Universitas Sultan Ageng Tirtayasa.
![[img]](https://eprints.untirta.ac.id/style/images/fileicons/text.png) |
Text
VIRDA NUR RAHAYU_1111180318_FULL TEXT.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Download (1MB) |
|
Text
VIRDA NUR RAHAYU_1111180318_01.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Download (1MB) |
|
Text
VIRDA NUR RAHAYU_1111180318_02.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Download (340kB) |
|
Text
VIRDA NUR RAHAYU_1111180318_03.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Download (292kB) |
|
Text
VIRDA NUR RAHAYU_1111180318_04.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Download (197kB) |
|
Text
VIRDA NUR RAHAYU_1111180318_05.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Download (251kB) |
|
Text
VIRDA NUR RAHAYU_1111180318_REFF.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Download (236kB) |
|
Text
VIRDA NUR RAHAYU_1111180318_LAMP.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Download (699kB) |
Abstract
Optics is a health facility that provides basic eye examinations, refraction examinations. In the implementation of optics, there must be an optical refractionist expert as the person in charge of optics. An optical refractionist is a health worker who is authorized to carry out basic eye examinations. Optical refraction experts must have a practice permit and work permit to be able to be the person in charge of optics, and to practice. The identification of the problem is, how is the responsibility of the optical refractionist in Article 10 of the Regulation of the Minister of Health Number 1 of 2016 concerning the Implementation of Optical in Serang City and what are the legal implications for optical business actors who do not have an optical refractionist expert. The theories used are the theory of responsibility and the theory of legal certainty. This study uses an empirical normative legal approach method with analytical descriptive specifications. Data were obtained through literature studies, documentation, and interviews with related parties. The results of the study indicate that the Government has required the presence of ROs as optical personnel, but its implementation is still not optimal in the field. The lack of RO involvement can have legal consequences, both administratively, civilly, and criminally, and has the potential to harm consumers. Therefore, supervision and law enforcement by relevant agencies need to be improved to ensure legal protection, patient safety, and the creation of legal certainty in optical services. In conclusion, the professional responsibility of optical refraction has not been fully implemented consistently in the practice of optical services in the field. The fact that opticians are still operating without directly involving RO personnel indicates negligence in fulfilling professional standards and ignoring the principles of health services that should prioritize the competence of medical personnel.
| Item Type: | Thesis (S1) | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Contributors: |
|
|||||||||
| Additional Information: | Optik merupakan fasilitas kesehatan yang melayani pemeriksaan mata dasar, pemeriksaan refraksi. Dalam penyelenggaraan optikal harus memiliki tenaga ahli refraksionis optisien sebagai penanggung jawab optik. Refraksionis optisien adalah tenaga kesehatan yang berwenang melakukan pemeriksaan mata dasar. Tenaga ahli refraksi optisien harus memiliki izin praktik dan izin kerja untuk dapat menjadi penanggung jawab optik, serta melakukan praktik. Adapun identifikasi masalahnya, bagaimana tanggung jawab refraksionis optisien dalam Pasal 10 Peraturan Menteri Kesehatan Nomor 1 Tahun 2016 tentang Penyelenggaraan Optikal di Kota Serang dan bagaimana implikasi hukum bagi pelaku usaha optikal yang tidak memiliki tenaga ahli refraksionis optisien. Teori yang digunakan yaitu teori tanggung jawab dan teori kepastian hukum. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode pendekatan hukum normatif empiris dengan spesifikasi deskriptif analitis. Data diperoleh melalui studi kepustakaan, dokumentasi, serta wawancara dengan pihak terkait. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa Pemerintah telah mewajibkan kehadiran RO sebagai penanggung jawab optikal, namun implementasinya masih belum optimal di lapangan. Ketidakterlibatan RO dapat menimbulkan konsekuensi hukum baik secara administratif, perdata, maupun pidana, serta berpotensi merugikan konsumen. Oleh karena itu, pengawasan dan penegakan hukum oleh instansi terkait perlu ditingkatkan guna menjamin perlindungan hukum, keselamatan pasien, serta terciptanya kepastian hukum dalam layanan optikal. Kesimpulannya tanggung jawab profesional refraksi optisien belum sepenuhnya diterapkan secara konsisten dalam praktik pelayanan optik di lapangan. Masih ditemukannya optik yang beroperasi tanpa melibatkan tenaga RO secara langsung menunjukkan adanya kelalaian dalam pemenuhan standar profesi dan pengabaian terhadap prinsip pelayanan kesehatan yang seharusnya mengutamakan kompetensi tenaga medis. | |||||||||
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | Responsibility, Optical Refractionist, Optical. Tanggung Jawab, Refraksionis Optisien, Optikal. | |||||||||
| Subjects: | K Law > K Law (General) | |||||||||
| Divisions: | 01-Fakultas Hukum 01-Fakultas Hukum > 74201-Program Studi Ilmu Hukum |
|||||||||
| Depositing User: | Virda Nur Rahayu | |||||||||
| Date Deposited: | 02 Sep 2025 03:51 | |||||||||
| Last Modified: | 02 Sep 2025 03:51 | |||||||||
| URI: | http://eprints.untirta.ac.id/id/eprint/52659 |
Actions (login required)
 |
View Item |