| 關 鍵 詞： |
自主決定權；告知後同意；身體健康完整性；醫療疏失；阻卻違法事由；得病患之同意；業務上正當行為；相當因果關係；推定之同意；醫療固有風險 |
| 中文摘要： |
醫師未盡告知義務而實施後續醫療，咸被認為係侵害病患之自主決定權，惟倘醫療過程無其他專業疏失，卻因為醫療本身所伴隨之固有風險實現而造成病患傷害時，醫方是否應負責賠償，不無疑問。本文蒐集德、日、以及我國相關判決，可窺得各國法院間就此之態度其實均頗有猶疑，特別是我國最高法院與高等法院晚近之審查方式似有轉變，值得注意。
筆者試從此類事件中病患受侵害法益之不同類型切入，觀察其相對應阻卻違法事由範圍之交錯，並斟酌告知後同意法則並非意在剝奪病患接受必要、相當且無疏失醫療機會之觀點，重新審視未取得病患有效同意而實施醫療行為時，對病患各類型法益侵害之歸責審查。於兼顧醫業執行不同於一般侵害行為之特殊性、對病患自主權之尊重、以及對其生命身體與健康權實質保障之前提下，並呼應我國實務晚近見解之發展，提出或可供參考之法理基礎。然而，法學論述與法律適用，不能悖離社會所形塑之當今法價值，實務見解之遞嬗與本文論點，其可接受性仍有待後續之觀察。
|
| 英文關鍵詞： |
Autonomy；Informed Consent, Integrity of Body and Health；Medical Malpractice；Illegality；Consent from Patient；Proper Conduct of Occupation；Adequate Causation；Presumed Consent；Inherent Medical Risk |
| 英文摘要： |
A difficult situation is facing us that if a physician antecedently violating the “informed consent doctrine” and the patient according to the insufficient information consenting to take the following treatment course which is faultless, yet some complication develops. Should the physician be liable for it?
This article collects and analyses the judicial decisions of such litigations in of German, Japan and Taiwan and finds that the majority hold that the physician who violates the doctrine is liable and should compensate the patient for the pecuniary loss and emotional distress even if the following treatment course is faultless, however some discrepancies still exist among them. Some of the minor opinions tends to restricted the liability or compensation amount through the strict examination of causation between the violation and injuries, some attempts to distinguish the behavior and liability of doctrine violation from the following treatment performance and accordingly implies that the violation of doctrine might not necessarily be liable for the complication caused by the following treatment.
Regarding the unique nature of medical practice, which marks its segregation from ordinary personal injury behaviors, this article holds that even if the physician antecedently violates the “informed consent doctrine”, the following faultless treatment should not be regarded as Illegal if the treatment is necessary and appropriate for improving or maintaining the patient’s health. The reason is that such faultless medical practice will do good to patients and consequently will satisfy the need of our society and be permissible. On the contrary, if the following treatment fails to meet the above criteria, the physician will be liable for the complication caused by the faultless treatment behavior. Asides from the personal injury, the physician perform medical practice without abiding by the “informed consent doctrine” will infringes the autonomy of patients, which might be regarded as the damage to personality in a severe way and should be liable and compensate the emotional distress.
|
| 目 次： |
壹、前言
貳、德、日實務見解之鳥瞰
一、德國實務見解
（一）責任成立層次－醫方是否應負賠償責任？
（二）責任範圍層次－賠償範圍為何？
（三）小結
二、日本實務見解
（一）最高法院之見解
（二）高等法院之見解
（三）地方法院之見解
（四）小結
參、臺灣實務見解之觀察
一、最高法院裁判
二、高等法院裁判
（一）第一類：肯認醫方違反告知義務應賠償醫療過程所生損害
（二）第二類：切割醫師違反告知義務與其醫療行為可非難性之見解
（三）附帶說明
三、小結
肆、本文見解
一、病患受侵害之法益類型
（一）第一類型：自主決定人格價值之侵害
（二）第二類型：身體與健康完整性之侵害
（三）第三類型：因醫療固有併發症風險實現所生之侵害
（四）第四類型：造成治癒（存活）機會減損或併發症機會提高之侵害
（五）第五類型：因後續醫療專業上疏失所致侵害
二、行為面可切割但法評價相牽連之二行為
（一）二行為各自有相對應之固有法評價
（二）二行為尚有法評價上之牽連
三、後續醫療行為之歸責審查
（一）實施後續醫療行為之阻卻違法事由
（二）對應至第二、三類型法益侵害之歸責審查
（三）醫療行為傷害說與非傷害說之分野
四、違反告知義務行為之歸責審查
（一）第一至三類型法益侵害之審查
（二）第四類型法益侵害之審查
五、小結
伍、結論
|
| 相關法條： |
 |
| 相關判解： |
|
| 相關函釋： |
|
| 相關論著： |
|