法學期刊
  • 社群分享
論著名稱: 醫師執行預立醫療決定的刑事責任(The Criminal Liability of the Doctor Performs Advanced Directive)
編著譯者: 張麗卿
出版日期: 2017.06
刊登出處: 台灣/輔仁法學第 53 期 /1-42 頁
頁  數: 41 點閱次數: 1196
下載點數: 164 點 銷售明細: 權利金查詢 變更售價
授 權 者: 輔仁大學法律學院 授權者指定不分配權利金給作者)
關 鍵 詞: 病人自主預立醫療決定善終安樂死刑事責任
中文摘要: 2016 年 1 月,台灣通過亞洲第一部病人自主權利法(下稱本法),使重症病人對於善終的追求,具有法律的依據。具體來說,成年人可以預立醫療決定,如果未來不幸成為末期病人、植物人、極重度失智、不可逆的昏迷狀態,或以當前醫療水準無法醫治的痛苦疾病時,且經醫師專業判斷認定,則可以依據預立醫療決定,按照病人的意願,終止、撤除或不施行維持生命的醫療或灌食。
本文探討,病人自主權利法在實踐上可能發生的刑事責任。醫師依照合法的程序,完成病人的意願,放棄醫療,使病人得到善終,可能構成刑法第 275 條受囑託殺人的構成要件,但是本法於第 14 條第 5 項規定:「不負刑事責任」;第 14 條第 3 項規定:「得不施行」,皆得作為免除醫師刑事責任的依據,而可以排除違法性。因為行為是否違法,必須從整體的法律秩序判斷。本法既然允許醫師在法定程序下醫療或不醫療,而且規定醫師不負刑事責任,醫師的行為即不違法,這是典型的
「依法令的行為」,然而,對於原本仍有救助可能的生命,為何能夠立法同意醫師放棄,應有加以深究的必要。本法雖然要於 2019 年方才施行,在施行前必須審慎思量,希望本法正式上路時,真正能為醫病取得雙贏。
英文關鍵詞: Patient AutonomyAdvanced Directive (AD)Good DeathEuthanasiaCriminal Liability
英文摘要: On January 2016, the first Patient Autonomy Act (the Act) in Asia has been passed in Taiwan, which allows critical illness patients to have legal ground pursuing good death. Specifically, an adult have a right to make Advanced Directives. If the adult who makes Advanced Directives unfortunately becomes a terminal illness patient, a resident with persistent vegetative state, a patient with profound Neurocognitive Disorder, a patient in irreversible coma, or a patient suffers from painful disease that cannot be cured under current medical standard, a doctor may terminate, withdraw, or not apply his Life-sustaining Treatment or feeding according to the will of the patient after the professional judgement by the doctor.
This Article makes an approach to criminal liability that might be occurred after the Act put into practice. A doctor who abandons medical treatment to accomplish the patient’s will of good death according to the legal process may fulfill the legal elements of the offense of entrusted murder prescribed in Article 275 of Criminal Code. Nevertheless, in compliance with the provision of Article 14 section 5 of the Act, the doctor in former situation “does not bear criminal liability,” meanwhile the doctor in later situation “may not apply it” in compliance with the provision of Article 14 section 3 of the Act. Both two sections exempt the doctors from criminal liability as the grounds of legal justification. That is because whether the conduct is illegal, it is judged from the entire order of laws. Since the Act exempts the doctor who enact or not according to the legal process from criminal liability and the conduct of the doctor is not illegal, this is a typical kind of “conduct performed in accordance with law or order.” However, for those lives with possibilities to be rescued originally, it needs to go further into that why can we make laws allow doctors to abandon such medical treatments. The Act is still necessary to be deliberated profoundly before it taking effect in 2019, and hopefully, it would really achieve win-win outcome for the patient and the doctor then.
目  次: 壹、前言
貳、病人預立醫療決定的法定程序
  一、從醫學專業認定權能主體
  二、預立醫療決定的程序保障
參、醫師執行預立醫療決定的刑法免責依據
  一、病人自主權是醫師免責的法理
  二、醫師不負刑事責任的意義
肆、醫師執行預立醫療決定的潛在風險
  一、輕率執行預立醫療決定
  二、拒絕執行預立醫療決定
參、結語
相關法條:
相關判解:
相關函釋:
    相關論著:
    返回功能列