法學期刊.
  • 社群分享
論著名稱: 【醫療民事法】檢查結果告知義務:已離院病人毋庸告知是醫療慣行?還是醫療過失?(Duty of Notification of Examination: Is It a Medical Custom or a Medical Negligence that There Is No Need to Notice the Patient Who Discharged the Result of Examination?)
編著譯者: 侯英泠
出版日期: 2019.04
刊登出處: 台灣/月旦醫事法報告第 30 期 /65-81 頁
頁  數: 11 點閱次數: 752
下載點數: 44 點 銷售明細: 權利金查詢 變更售價
授 權 者: 侯英泠
關 鍵 詞: 緊急通報義務醫療吿知義務醫療法第 82 條第 5 項醫療慣行
中文摘要: 本件主要爭點在於「當檢查結果異常,病人已離院,醫療機構是否有通報與告知義務」,以目前醫療慣行,病人離院後,除非有緊急危急情形,否則無通報與告知義務。此醫療慣行是否得為被告之告知義務免除事由?醫療慣行僅是一般醫療臨床運作習慣,如 SOP,其在醫療過失判斷之位階與醫療常規不同。本件醫療機構對病人之告知義務,有不同之責任基礎與範圍:一、一般醫療告知之從給付義務(不完全給付);二、緊急通報與告知之安全保護義務(附隨義務);三、緊急通報與告知機制建構之組織義務(醫療法第 82 條第 5 項、民法第 184 條第 1 項)。以上請求權基礎屬自由競合關係。
英文關鍵詞: obligation of emergency notificationduty of informationparagraph 82 section 5 of Medical Care Actmedical customs
英文摘要: The legal issue is about the question whether a hospital has the duty to inform or notice a patient who discharged when getting an abnormal result after taking an examination. According to current medical custom, there is no need to do it, except there would be an emergency. Could a medical custom as such be an exemption of duty of notification? A medical custom is just a usual practice at medical clinic, like so called “standard operating procedures”(SOP), which is different from a medical standard. The duty of notification of the hospital in this case has different foundation and range of responsibility: 1. Accessory obligation of general medical notification(incomplete performance); 2.Obligation of safeguard which is emergency notification and information(Accessory Obligation); 3. Obligation of organization which is emergency notification and construction of inform-system(paragraph 82 section 5 of Medical Care Act, paragraph 184 section 1 of Civil Law). These rights above could be enforced on the ground of free choice by one of the parties.
目  次: 壹、案例概述
貳、案例判決
參、結論
相關法條:
相關判解:
相關函釋:
    相關論著:
    返回功能列