本文選題：法院授權(quán)剖腹產(chǎn)　切入點(diǎn)：家父主義　出處：《環(huán)球法律評(píng)論》2012年03期 　論文類型：期刊論文

【摘要】：英國20世紀(jì)90年代一系列法院授權(quán)的剖腹產(chǎn)案件表顯出了婦產(chǎn)領(lǐng)域根深蒂固的醫(yī)學(xué)與司法上的家父主義傾向——對(duì)產(chǎn)婦欠缺意識(shí)能力的一般推定,對(duì)產(chǎn)婦非理性決定的蔑視以及對(duì)產(chǎn)婦及/或胎兒生命利益無以復(fù)加的推重——從而與患者自主權(quán)原則發(fā)生沖突。英國法院通過對(duì)意識(shí)能力概念過于嚴(yán)格的解釋,來繞過胎兒非為法律上之人的法律壁壘,甚至公然對(duì)實(shí)證法的立場發(fā)起挑戰(zhàn)。上訴法院雖然在兩項(xiàng)判決中扼制住了這一情緒化的異動(dòng),它的意識(shí)能力理論卻仍然為家父主義的回潮埋下了伏筆。故而,單有法律原則,還不足以為產(chǎn)婦自主權(quán)提供充分保護(hù)。只要諸如應(yīng)該不惜一切代價(jià)地讓產(chǎn)婦娩出一個(gè)健康的孩子、分娩中的產(chǎn)婦欠缺作出有效決定的意識(shí)能力這樣一些流布甚廣的觀念不得澄清,產(chǎn)婦導(dǎo)向的法律政策與嬰兒導(dǎo)向的產(chǎn)科訓(xùn)練之間的沖突不得協(xié)調(diào),強(qiáng)化了產(chǎn)科醫(yī)生話語權(quán)的醫(yī)療資源匱乏狀態(tài)不得根本緩解,那么,曲解、回避法律原則強(qiáng)行手術(shù)的作法就斷不會(huì)少。
[Abstract]:In 1990s, a series of cases of caesarean section authorized by a series of courts in the United Kingdom revealed the deep-rooted medical and judicial patriarchal tendencies in the field of obstetrics and gynaecology-a general presumption of lack of awareness of maternity. Contempt for irrational maternal decisions and unrelenting weight for the interests of maternal and / or fetal life conflict with the principle of patient autonomy. The British courts have adopted an overly strict interpretation of the concept of consciousness, To circumvent the legal barriers that the fetus is not a legal person, and even openly challenge the positivist position. The Court of Appeal, in two decisions, curbed this emotional transference, His theory of consciousness and ability still laid the groundwork for the return of fatherhood. Therefore, there are only legal principles. Not enough to provide adequate protection for maternal autonomy, as long as, for example, a woman should be allowed to deliver a healthy child at all costs, The widespread perception that mothers in childbirth lack the ability to make effective decisions cannot be clarified, and the conflict between Maternity oriented legal policies and infant oriented obstetric training cannot be reconciled, The lack of medical resources, which strengthens the right of obstetrics doctors to speak, must not be alleviated fundamentally, then the practice of misinterpreting and evading the principle of law and forcing surgery will not be less.
【作者單位】： 首都醫(yī)科大學(xué)衛(wèi)生法學(xué)系;
【基金】：2009年度教育部人文社會(huì)科學(xué)研究青年項(xiàng)目“意外事故的綜合救濟(jì)機(jī)制研究”(項(xiàng)目編號(hào):09YJC820006) 2010年度北京市社科重點(diǎn)項(xiàng)目“醫(yī)療侵權(quán)責(zé)任立法對(duì)首都醫(yī)師執(zhí)業(yè)環(huán)境的影響評(píng)價(jià)與對(duì)策研究”(項(xiàng)目編號(hào):10AaFX093)階段性研究成果
【分類號(hào)】：D956.1;DD912.1
，

本文編號(hào)：1573483