1.The case playback In 2006, Ms. Qin went to the hospital for a physical examination, and found a shadow on her right lung when she had a chest X-ray, so she was admitted to W Hospital. The hospital intended to do “open chest exploration” for Ms. Qin, and at the same time, informed the family that the intraoperative pathological freezing examination results were inaccurate. The family then signed the surgical consent form and a Patient Informed Consent Form for Intraoperative Pathology Freezing. After the surgery, the doctor showed the patient’s family the organs and tissues that had been removed and informed them that the results of the “frozen section” made during the surgery were: small cell malignant tumor (in the outer segment of the right middle lobe of the lung), specific type (cancer? lymphoma?) To be determined by paraffin. （The (inner segment of the right middle lobe of the lung) was fibrous scar tissue. Therefore further resection was performed. A few days later, the routine paraffin pathology report showed chronic bronchitis with nodular hyperplasia of lymphoid tissue and invasion of the bronchial wall, focal interstitial fibrous tissue hyperplasia of lung tissue and pulmonary stasis edema (right outer middle lobe). Ms. Qin did not have cancer. The patient’s family borrowed frozen and paraffin sections from the hospital and asked experts from other hospitals to consult with them, but the conclusion was unanimous: it was not cancer. As a result of this “misdiagnosis”, the patient’s family was angry and took the hospital to court, asking the hospital to return and pay for medical fees, review fees, psychological damages, judicial appraisal fees, disability appraisal fees and other fees totaling more than 300,000 yuan. During the trial, the technical appraisal of the medical incident applied for concluded that the case did not constitute a medical incident. The judicial appraisal concluded that due to the specificity of the condition and the limitations of the rapid frozen pathological examination, the pathological results of frozen section and paraffin section were inconsistent. However, the treatment method adopted by the medical party did not violate the treatment standard. 2, doctor’s opinion Statistical results in developed countries show that the results of intraoperative rapid pathological freezing examination and the final “paraffin” results are inconsistent, accounting for 5% to 10% of the total number of “freezing”. In other words, intraoperative frozen diagnosis inevitably has a certain rate of misdiagnosis, and the final pathological diagnosis still needs to be clarified by “conventional paraffin” section after surgery. In my opinion, the inconsistency between rapid frozen pathological examination results and postoperative pathology is a situation that can hardly be completely avoided by the current medical technology and should not be considered as medical fault. The right of whether to accept the diagnostic error of the rapid frozen section lies with the patient and his family. In order to protect patients’ rights and ensure medical safety, medical institutions strictly fulfill the obligation of informing and obtaining patients’ written consent. This requires the doctor to fulfill the obligation of informing the patient so that the patient understands the limitations of rapid frozen section diagnosis and the possibility of misdiagnosis or omission; at the same time, the patient’s right to self-determination should be respected to decide whether to accept the rapid frozen section examination. Due to the uncertainty of rapid frozen section results, it is obviously unfair to the medical party if the medical fault is judged unilaterally by the error of rapid frozen section once the patient challenges and litigates afterwards. The medical party must be exempted from liability on the basis of the patient’s informed consent and voluntary application. Of course, avoiding medical negligence is fundamental to reducing medical disputes. Hospitals and pathologists should continuously and strictly implement a two-level quality control system within the department; strengthening the contact and communication between pathology and clinicians is an important part of enhancing the accuracy of pathology diagnosis and reducing disputes. When pathologists find special conditions in diagnosis or when pathology does not match with clinical manifestations, they should take the initiative to contact clinicians and ask about surgery or sampling to fully understand the condition. 3., lawyer comments I believe that the medical level that W hospital should have under the normal diagnosis and treatment qualification should be used as the standard to judge whether it is negligent. If the case is not a difficult pathology case, W hospital should make a correct diagnosis but failed to do so, even if it does not constitute medical malpractice, the hospital should be held responsible for the civil liability according to the provisions of the general principles of civil law. However, according to the available evidence, the conclusion in the “judicial appraisal opinion” emphasizes the special nature of the condition, and it can be understood that this case is indeed a difficult pathology case. We cannot demand that the doctor make a completely accurate conclusion at the initial diagnosis and include the uncertainty of the initial diagnosis in the scope of compensation. At the same time, the conclusion also concluded that “the treatment method used by the doctor did not violate the treatment standard”. Since the hospital was not subjectively negligent, it was not liable for compensation. I think the significance of this case is to discuss the issue of medical risk. The medical service industry is a high-risk professional industry, which is fundamentally different from the general service industry. There are still many unknown areas in medical practice, which is a long process for human beings to continuously discover themselves and understand themselves in the development of society, and this is a field that requires a high degree of scientific accumulation and exploration, and both doctors and patients have made their own contributions to the development of medicine. Therefore, it is unfair if one side of the doctor-patient side is entirely responsible for those unavoidable medical risks caused by objective reasons. In my personal opinion, in this case, the court should reasonably share the responsibility to both parties according to the principle of fairness. In the long run, the state should improve the medical risk management system in China as soon as possible to achieve scientific management of medical risks and to reasonably allocate the responsibility for medical risks.