BPJS Patient Passed Away After Waiting in the Emergency Department: Assessing Hospital Liability and Professional Ethics of Health Workers in the Digital Sphere

Introduction

Complaints from BPJS patients regarding lengthy waiting times in emergency departments have once again sparked debate over the extent to which hospitals are required to ensure the availability of services for patients, particularly when the facilities required have limited capacity. The debate became increasingly complex after the patient concerned was reportedly deceased several days after posting his complaint on social media.

The case began when Yurizal Tri Chaerawan complained on the Threads platform on 22 July 2026 about having to wait approximately eight hours for an inpatient room in the Emergency Department (ED) of RSCM. After Yurizal was reportedly deceased on 31 July 2026, the Ministry of Health clarified that the issue was related to limited capacity in the High Care Unit (HCU) required by the patient, rather than simply the absence of medical treatment.

Amid these developments, the issue subsequently shifted to another dimension. A number of health workers were found to have posted comments on social media that were considered lacking in empathy toward the patient’s complaint. These responses raised a separate question concerning the limits of professionalism among health workers in the digital sphere: does the obligation to uphold professional ethics apply only when a health worker is providing services at a healthcare facility, or does it also apply when the individual interacts on social media?

Accordingly, this case should at least be examined through two distinct legal issues. First, can a lengthy patient waiting time immediately be categorized as negligence or a legal violation by the hospital? Second, what is the legal position of comments made by health workers on social media where such comments are considered degrading or disrespectful to the dignity of patients?

BPJS Patients’ Rights and Hospitals’ Obligations

The first issue that must be distinguished is between delays in services caused by negligence and delays arising from limited healthcare-facility capacity.

As a matter of law, patients have the right to receive healthcare services in accordance with their medical needs, professional standards, and quality of service, as stipulated in Article 276 letter c of Law No. 17 of 2023 on Health, which provides:

“Patients have the right to receive Healthcare Services in accordance with their medical needs, professional standards, and quality of service.”

On the other hand, Article 189 paragraph (1) of Law No. 17 of 2023 on Health sets out several obligations of Hospitals that are relevant to this issue, namely:

Article 189 paragraph (1) letter b

“Hospitals are required to provide safe, quality, non-discriminatory, and effective healthcare services by prioritizing the interests of patients in accordance with Hospital service standards.”

Article 189 paragraph (1) letter g

“Hospitals are required to establish, implement, and maintain healthcare service quality standards at Hospitals as a reference in providing services to Patients.”

Article 189 paragraph (1) letter m
“Hospitals are required to respect and protect Patients’ rights.”

Accordingly, based on these provisions, Hospitals are not only required to provide safe, quality, non-discriminatory, and effective healthcare services, but are also required to establish, implement, and maintain Healthcare Service quality standards as a reference in serving Patients, as well as to respect and protect Patients’ rights.

However, the existence of a lengthy waiting time does not, in itself, establish that a hospital has committed negligence. To reach such a conclusion, it is first necessary to examine the patient’s condition upon arrival, the medical measures provided, the facilities required, whether such facilities were available, and how medical decisions were made by the health workers treating the patient.

In the context of the Yurizal case, the Ministry of Health identified limited HCU capacity as a factor causing the patient to wait. If this fact is established, the legal issue would be different from a situation in which a patient failed to receive treatment due to negligence or neglect.

Accordingly, a lengthy waiting time is not the sole parameter for determining whether medical negligence has occurred. The relationship between the delay, service standards, the actions of health workers, and the patient’s clinical condition must be objectively established.

This is also important in determining whether an event may develop into a civil dispute. Article 1365 of the Indonesian Civil Code (KUHPerdata) provides the basis for a claim based on an unlawful act, which reads:

“Every act that violates the law and causes loss to another person obliges the person who, through his or her fault, caused such loss to compensate for that loss.”

There must be an evidentiary basis establishing the existence of an unlawful act, fault, loss, and a causal relationship between the act and the resulting loss.

Therefore, if the patient’s family seeks to assess whether the hospital was negligent, the legal question is not merely “why did the patient have to wait?”, but also “was the waiting time the result of a violation of service standards, or was it a consequence of limited facilities that had been managed in accordance with applicable medical and administrative requirements?”

Health Workers’ Professional Ethics Do Not End in the Practice Setting

The second issue has a different character. While the issue of waiting times concerns the healthcare system and medical actions, health workers’ comments on social media concern individual professionalism and ethics.

Law No. 17 of 2023 on Health establishes professional disciplinary enforcement as part of efforts to support the professionalism of medical personnel and health workers. Article 304 paragraph (1) of Law No. 17 of 2023 on Health provides:

“In order to support the professionalism of Medical Personnel and Health Workers, professional disciplinary enforcement must be implemented.”

This provision establishes that the professionalism of Medical Personnel and Health Workers is not limited to competence in providing healthcare services, but also encompasses compliance with applicable professional discipline.

In the context of social media, the issue becomes more complex because health workers may remain publicly identifiable through the profession attached to them. Although a comment may be made outside working hours and not in the capacity of directly providing medical services, the comment may still be assessed from the perspective of propriety and professionalism where it concerns a patient or the healthcare profession.

However, not every comment considered inappropriate automatically constitutes a criminal offense. Here, a distinction must be made between violations of professional ethics or discipline and violations of criminal law.

Ethical violations may be assessed through professional disciplinary mechanisms and applicable internal provisions. Meanwhile, where a comment satisfies the elements of insult or defamation through an electronic system, the criminal provisions of the ITE Law may become relevant.

In other words, the existence of a comment considered lacking in empathy must be assessed proportionately: what the statement says, to whom it was directed, the context in which it was made, and whether it satisfies the elements of a particular legal violation.

Can Health Workers’ Comments on Social Media Constitute a Criminal Offense?

Law No. 1 of 2024 on the Second Amendment to the ITE Law regulates provisions concerning attacks on a person’s honor or reputation through an electronic system. Article 27A of the ITE Law is one of the provisions that may be considered where there is an allegation that such conduct was committed through electronic media.

Article 27A of Law No. 1 of 2024 provides:

“Any Person who intentionally attacks the honor or reputation of another person by accusing that person of something, with the intention that such matter be made known to the public in the form of Electronic Information and/or Electronic Documents carried out through an Electronic System.”

This provision was subsequently subject to judicial review before the Constitutional Court. Through Constitutional Court Decision No. 105/PUU-XXII/2024, the Court provided an interpretation of Article 27A, among other things by affirming that the provision must be directed against acts that attack the honor or reputation of an individual, rather than government institutions, institutions, corporations, professions, or particular groups. The decision also affirmed that the provision concerns a complaint-based offense, meaning that its application is subject to certain limitations and cannot be arbitrarily applied to every statement considered detrimental.

Accordingly, the application of Article 27A cannot be based solely on the assumption that a comment is harsh, sarcastic, or lacking in empathy. It must be assessed whether the statement satisfies the elements of an attack on honor or reputation by accusing a person of something, was made with the intention that it be made known to the public, and was conveyed in the form of Electronic Information and/or Electronic Documents through an Electronic System.

However, the application of Article 27A of the ITE Law cannot be based solely on the assessment that a comment is harsh, sarcastic, or lacking in empathy. The provision contains elements that must be established, including the intention to attack another person’s honor or reputation by accusing that person of something and the intention that such accusation be made known to the public through an Electronic System.

Accordingly, it is necessary to distinguish between a comment considered inappropriate from the perspective of professional ethics and a statement that, as a matter of law, satisfies the elements of an attack on honor or reputation as contemplated by Article 27A of the ITE Law. Not every statement considered unethical can automatically be classified as a criminal offense.

This distinction is important because ethical and professional disciplinary liability operates through mechanisms that differ from criminal liability. A comment may be considered a violation of ethics or professional discipline without necessarily satisfying the elements of a criminal offense under Article 27A of the ITE Law. Conversely, where a statement satisfies all the required elements of a criminal offense, a person’s status as a health worker does not, in itself, confer legal immunity for conduct carried out in the digital sphere.

Accordingly, professional status does not confer legal immunity in the digital sphere, but the application of criminal law must nevertheless be based on concrete elements of a criminal offense, sufficient evidence, and the limitations as interpreted in the Constitutional Court’s decision.

Forms of Liability That May Arise

This case may give rise to several different forms of legal liability. Each avenue has its own legal basis, mechanism, and evidentiary standard.

1. Professional Discipline and Internal Sanctions

Health workers proven to have violated professional discipline may undergo disciplinary enforcement proceedings in accordance with the provisions of Law No. 17 of 2023 on Health. In addition, a hospital may impose internal sanctions where the health worker’s conduct is inconsistent with the applicable code of ethics or institutional regulations.

2. Potential Criminal Proceedings

In the development of this case, the family, through its legal counsel, stated that it would pursue legal measures in the form of a police report, a public complaint, and a formal demand concerning comments made on social media. The criminal provision that may be considered is Article 27A of Law No. 1 of 2024 concerning the ITE Law, where the comment satisfies the elements of an attack on honor or reputation through an electronic system.

3. Potential Civil Claim

Where a causal relationship can be established between the delay in treatment and the loss suffered by the patient, the family may also potentially bring a civil claim based on Article 1365 of the KUHPerdata concerning unlawful acts. However, such claim continues to require proof of fault, loss, and causation.

Accordingly, a single event may give rise to more than one form of legal liability. Disciplinary, criminal, and civil avenues do not replace one another, but are assessed based on different elements and evidentiary requirements..

Practical Implications for Hospitals, Health Workers, and Patients’ Families

• For Hospitals

This case demonstrates the importance of distinguishing between the obligation to provide services and limitations in facility capacity. Hospitals must continue to ensure that patients receive treatment in accordance with their medical condition and applicable service standards. However, limitations in the availability of particular beds or facilities must be assessed based on the specific circumstances and the measures taken by the hospital to address them.

• For Health Workers

The digital sphere cannot be completely separated from professional responsibility. Social media may indeed constitute a private space, but where professional identity is attached to an individual and the content created concerns patients or the healthcare profession, such conduct may give rise to ethical, disciplinary, and even legal consequences.

• For Patients’ Families

Several avenues may, in theory, be pursued where a violation is suspected. However, each avenue requires a different evidentiary basis. Alleged hospital negligence must be established through the relationship between the act or omission and the loss that occurred. Likewise, an alleged criminal offense arising from comments on social media must be assessed based on the relevant elements of the criminal offense.

Accordingly, legal action should not be based solely on public anger, but on evidence, chronology, medical records, service standards, and the substance of the statements in question

What Needs to Be Evaluated?

This case demonstrates that healthcare-service issues concern not only medical actions, but also system readiness and the professionalism of health workers. Accordingly, the government and healthcare institutions need to evaluate service capacity, particularly at facilities with high levels of demand such as EDs and HCUs, because the availability of beds is not merely an administrative matter but may affect the speed and continuity of patient care. On the other hand, health workers’ understanding of ethics in the digital sphere also needs to be strengthened. Professionalism does not end when services at a healthcare facility are completed, but continues to apply when health workers interact with the public through social media. Where there is an alleged violation of discipline or ethics, enforcement should be carried out objectively, transparently, and on the basis of evidence, not merely to impose sanctions, but to maintain professional standards and public trust in the healthcare profession.

Closing

The Yurizal case demonstrates that a single healthcare event may give rise to two distinct legal issues. The length of a patient’s waiting time must be assessed in light of service standards, the patient’s medical condition, facility availability, and the causal relationship with the resulting consequences, while comments made by health workers on social media must be assessed from the perspectives of ethics, professional discipline, and, where the elements are satisfied, criminal law. Accordingly, limitations in the healthcare system cannot automatically justify every delay, but a lengthy waiting time likewise cannot, by itself, be regarded as evidence of medical negligence. Similarly, criticism of health workers’ conduct must remain within the framework of the applicable evidentiary and legal procedures. Ultimately, what must be safeguarded is the balance between ensuring that patients receive adequate and non-discriminatory healthcare services and ensuring that health workers continue to uphold their professionalism, including when they are active in the digital sphere. This issue is not merely about how long a patient waits or what is written on social media, but about how the healthcare system, institutions, and health workers are held accountable for every action within their respective authority in a professional, transparent, and lawful manner.