醫(yī)療事故中未死亡患者近親屬的精神損害賠償?shù)木葷轿?/H1>
發(fā)布時間：2018-03-27 22:36
本文選題：醫(yī)療事故 切入點：患者近親屬 出處：《華東政法大學》2013年碩士論文
【摘要】：對于醫(yī)療事故發(fā)生后的賠償問題，中國目前主要通過《醫(yī)療事故處理條例》、《最高人民法院關于確定民事侵權精神損害賠償責任若干問題的解釋》等法律法規(guī)進行調整。而該些法律并未對未死亡患者近親屬的精神損害賠償問題進行任何規(guī)定。 然而，患者未死亡（成為植物人、健康嚴重受損或癱瘓）的情況也會給其近親屬帶來嚴重的精神損害。這其中，不僅包括患者近親屬獲知醫(yī)療事故后遭受的剎那性的精神上的震驚和損害，也包括這之后在照顧未死亡患者的過程中產(chǎn)生的精神損害。如對患者近親屬的這類精神損害繼續(xù)采取忽視態(tài)度，這無疑有悖于我國民法的公平原則，同時也不利于解決現(xiàn)今醫(yī)患關系日益緊張的尷尬現(xiàn)狀。故而，在我國法律體系中增加對未死亡患者近親屬的精神損害賠償?shù)囊?guī)定是勢在必行。 如撇開中國的立法，醫(yī)療事故實際上既可視作醫(yī)務人員的侵權行為，也可視作醫(yī)務人員未按照與患者之間的醫(yī)療合同盡職履行合同義務導致的違約結果。故而從法理學角度，未死亡患者近親屬的精神損害賠償民事賠償責任既可存在于違約責任中，也可存在于侵權責任中。 但盡管各國法理和司法實踐對違約下的精神損害賠償在一定條件下給予了肯定（如涉及人身權利或利益的合同發(fā)生違約可提出精神損害訴求），但從違約責任角度對未死亡患者近親屬的精神損害給予賠償在目前卻不是一個好的途徑。因為一來，將醫(yī)療事故的基礎法律關系定義為合同關系，無法體現(xiàn)醫(yī)患關系中還包含著倫理特性及國家行政干預在內的特性；二來，患者近親屬的精神損害無疑屬于合同相對方之外的第三方的損失，缺少法理上的支持。故此，患者近親屬的精神損害賠償并不適合納入合同法調整。 反觀侵權法，法理上，英美法系已開始對侵權關系外第三方（即使該第三人未發(fā)生身體傷害或財產(chǎn)損害）因侵權行為導致的精神損害賠償給予支持；司法實踐方面，也有很多國家對于未死亡患者近親屬的精神損害訴求給予支持。而且，中國的立法體系和司法實踐已將精神損害賠償納入侵權法領域調整，故而在中國原有法律規(guī)定中增加患者近親屬的精神損害賠償，無論從法理學角度或是司法實踐，完全有其正當性和合理性，也更加便利。 至于如何在中國現(xiàn)有立法體系中增加此類規(guī)定，則鑒于患者近親屬的精神損害是依附于患者人身權益已先行受損的基礎之上，，故可在承認患者近親屬在患者未死亡下享有精神損害求償權的基礎上,以法定形式將患者近親屬的精神損害納入醫(yī)療事故的侵權訴訟中的賠償項目中，視患者與患者近親屬為同一方當事人，由患者代替患者近親屬提出訴求。 增加對醫(yī)療事故中未死亡患者近親屬精神損害賠償?shù)牧⒎�，能夠在一定程度上減輕醫(yī)療事故發(fā)生后患者家庭一方遭受的痛苦，緩和醫(yī)患矛盾。希望通過本文對未死亡患者近親屬的精神損害賠償問題的理論基礎和司法實踐的梳理和探討，能夠為中國在此方面的立法處理提供一些可行的想法。
[Abstract]:The issue of compensation for medical treatment after the accident, Chinese mainly through "Regulations on handling medical accidents", "the Supreme People's court to adjust the issues of determining the spirit of tort liability for damages explanations of other laws and regulations. The law does not damage to the spirit of death of close relatives in the problems of any of the provisions.
However, patients with no death (a vegetative state, the serious health damage or paralysis) the situation will bring serious mental harm to their relatives. Among these, not only including close relatives in the informed medical accident after suffering a moment of spiritual shock and damage, including the mental damage after care and death of patients in the process of production. As of close relatives in this kind of spiritual damage to continue to take the attitude of neglect, this is contrary to the fair principle of civil law of our country, but also is not conducive to solve the embarrassing situation of the increasingly tense relationship between doctors and patients. Therefore, in our legal system, increase the provisions for compensation for mental damage is not the death of close relatives in the is imperative.
As Chinese aside the legislation of medical accident is regarded as medical tort, but also regarded as the medical staff and patients not in the medical contract due diligence obligation of contract caused by breach of contract results. So from the perspective of jurisprudence, not death of close relatives in the mental damage compensation of civil liability can exist in breach of contract that can also be found in the tort liability.
But despite the mental damage for breach of contract under the legal and judicial practice of other countries compensation given under certain conditions (such as that involving personal rights or interests of the contract breach can put forward the mental damage, mental damage on appeal) but not the death of close relatives in the perspective of compensation from liability for breach of contract in the present but not a good way. As a result, the medical accident is defined as the legal foundation of the contractual relationship, unable to reflect the characteristics of the doctor-patient relationship also contains ethical characteristic and state administrative intervention, and secondly, spiritual damage; close relatives in the undoubtedly belongs to the third party outside the contract opposite party loss, lack of legal support. Therefore, the spirit of the damage of close relatives in the compensation is not suitable for inclusion in the contract law.
In tort law, law, common law has begun to tort third party (even if the third people did not occur for bodily injury or property damage) due to mental damage due to the infringement compensation support; judicial practice, there are many countries for mental damage without death of close relatives in the appeal for support. Also, China legislative system and judicial practice has been included in the adjustment of tort law of compensation for spiritual damages, therefore increase the mental damage compensation in close relatives in the original legal provisions Chinese, whether from the perspective of jurisprudence and judicial practice, has its legitimacy and rationality, but also more convenient.
As for how to increase such provisions in China existing legislation system, because of close relatives in the mental damage is based on personal interests with attachment has been damaged, so it can be recognized based in patients with close relatives enjoy mental damage claim in patients without death on the legal form of mental damage in patients with close relatives in the tort litigation medical accident compensation in the project, as patients and close relatives in the same party, by the patient instead of close relatives in the appeal.
To not close relatives of mental damage compensation in medical accident death legislation can reduce medical accidents in patients after a family suffering in a certain extent, ease the doctor-patient contradiction. Hope that through this spiritual damage to the death of close relatives in the compensation problem of theory and judicial practice analysis and discussion. To be able to provide some feasible ideas for China legislation in this respect.
【學位授予單位】：華東政法大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2013
【分類號】：D922.16;D923
【參考文獻】
相關期刊論文 前10條
1 李永軍;非財產(chǎn)性損害的契約性救濟及其正當性——違約責任與侵權責任的二元制體系下的邊際案例救濟[J];比較法研究;2003年06期
2 吳文嬪;;論第三人合同權利的產(chǎn)生——以第三人利益合同為范式[J];比較法研究;2011年05期
3 郝秀輝;;論空難致第三人的精神損害賠償[J];當代法學;2012年01期
4 曾婉珊;;醫(yī)療事故賠償責任中美立法比較[J];法律與醫(yī)學雜志;2007年01期
5 魯曉明;;論純粹精神損害賠償[J];法學家;2010年01期
6 倪同木;夏萬宏;;違約非財產(chǎn)損害賠償問題研究——以《德國民法典》第253條之修改為中心[J];法學評論;2010年02期
7 葉名怡;;醫(yī)療合同責任理論的衰落——以法國法的演變?yōu)榉治鰧ο骩J];甘肅政法學院學報;2012年06期
8 朱曉峰;;精神損害賠償規(guī)則在財產(chǎn)侵害中的限制與適用——功能主義視角下的中德法律實踐比較[J];法治研究;2013年03期
9 蔡唱;左常午;;因生命健康權受到侵害所致反射損害研究——兼評我國民法草案的相關規(guī)定[J];湖南大學學報(社會科學版);2006年01期
10 韓松;;人身侵權損害賠償中的第三人損害及其賠償請求權[J];華東政法學院學報;2006年03期
相關博士學位論文 前1條
1 姜鳳武;醫(yī)療損害責任制度比較研究[D];大連海事大學;2012年
本文編號：1673590
本文鏈接：http://www.sikaile.net/falvlunwen/hetongqiyue/1673590.html
本文選題：醫(yī)療事故 切入點：患者近親屬 出處：《華東政法大學》2013年碩士論文
【摘要】：對于醫(yī)療事故發(fā)生后的賠償問題，中國目前主要通過《醫(yī)療事故處理條例》、《最高人民法院關于確定民事侵權精神損害賠償責任若干問題的解釋》等法律法規(guī)進行調整。而該些法律并未對未死亡患者近親屬的精神損害賠償問題進行任何規(guī)定。 然而，患者未死亡（成為植物人、健康嚴重受損或癱瘓）的情況也會給其近親屬帶來嚴重的精神損害。這其中，不僅包括患者近親屬獲知醫(yī)療事故后遭受的剎那性的精神上的震驚和損害，也包括這之后在照顧未死亡患者的過程中產(chǎn)生的精神損害。如對患者近親屬的這類精神損害繼續(xù)采取忽視態(tài)度，這無疑有悖于我國民法的公平原則，同時也不利于解決現(xiàn)今醫(yī)患關系日益緊張的尷尬現(xiàn)狀。故而，在我國法律體系中增加對未死亡患者近親屬的精神損害賠償?shù)囊?guī)定是勢在必行。 如撇開中國的立法，醫(yī)療事故實際上既可視作醫(yī)務人員的侵權行為，也可視作醫(yī)務人員未按照與患者之間的醫(yī)療合同盡職履行合同義務導致的違約結果。故而從法理學角度，未死亡患者近親屬的精神損害賠償民事賠償責任既可存在于違約責任中，也可存在于侵權責任中。 但盡管各國法理和司法實踐對違約下的精神損害賠償在一定條件下給予了肯定（如涉及人身權利或利益的合同發(fā)生違約可提出精神損害訴求），但從違約責任角度對未死亡患者近親屬的精神損害給予賠償在目前卻不是一個好的途徑。因為一來，將醫(yī)療事故的基礎法律關系定義為合同關系，無法體現(xiàn)醫(yī)患關系中還包含著倫理特性及國家行政干預在內的特性；二來，患者近親屬的精神損害無疑屬于合同相對方之外的第三方的損失，缺少法理上的支持。故此，患者近親屬的精神損害賠償并不適合納入合同法調整。 反觀侵權法，法理上，英美法系已開始對侵權關系外第三方（即使該第三人未發(fā)生身體傷害或財產(chǎn)損害）因侵權行為導致的精神損害賠償給予支持；司法實踐方面，也有很多國家對于未死亡患者近親屬的精神損害訴求給予支持。而且，中國的立法體系和司法實踐已將精神損害賠償納入侵權法領域調整，故而在中國原有法律規(guī)定中增加患者近親屬的精神損害賠償，無論從法理學角度或是司法實踐，完全有其正當性和合理性，也更加便利。 至于如何在中國現(xiàn)有立法體系中增加此類規(guī)定，則鑒于患者近親屬的精神損害是依附于患者人身權益已先行受損的基礎之上，，故可在承認患者近親屬在患者未死亡下享有精神損害求償權的基礎上,以法定形式將患者近親屬的精神損害納入醫(yī)療事故的侵權訴訟中的賠償項目中，視患者與患者近親屬為同一方當事人，由患者代替患者近親屬提出訴求。 增加對醫(yī)療事故中未死亡患者近親屬精神損害賠償?shù)牧⒎�，能夠在一定程度上減輕醫(yī)療事故發(fā)生后患者家庭一方遭受的痛苦，緩和醫(yī)患矛盾。希望通過本文對未死亡患者近親屬的精神損害賠償問題的理論基礎和司法實踐的梳理和探討，能夠為中國在此方面的立法處理提供一些可行的想法。
[Abstract]:The issue of compensation for medical treatment after the accident, Chinese mainly through "Regulations on handling medical accidents", "the Supreme People's court to adjust the issues of determining the spirit of tort liability for damages explanations of other laws and regulations. The law does not damage to the spirit of death of close relatives in the problems of any of the provisions.
However, patients with no death (a vegetative state, the serious health damage or paralysis) the situation will bring serious mental harm to their relatives. Among these, not only including close relatives in the informed medical accident after suffering a moment of spiritual shock and damage, including the mental damage after care and death of patients in the process of production. As of close relatives in this kind of spiritual damage to continue to take the attitude of neglect, this is contrary to the fair principle of civil law of our country, but also is not conducive to solve the embarrassing situation of the increasingly tense relationship between doctors and patients. Therefore, in our legal system, increase the provisions for compensation for mental damage is not the death of close relatives in the is imperative.
As Chinese aside the legislation of medical accident is regarded as medical tort, but also regarded as the medical staff and patients not in the medical contract due diligence obligation of contract caused by breach of contract results. So from the perspective of jurisprudence, not death of close relatives in the mental damage compensation of civil liability can exist in breach of contract that can also be found in the tort liability.
But despite the mental damage for breach of contract under the legal and judicial practice of other countries compensation given under certain conditions (such as that involving personal rights or interests of the contract breach can put forward the mental damage, mental damage on appeal) but not the death of close relatives in the perspective of compensation from liability for breach of contract in the present but not a good way. As a result, the medical accident is defined as the legal foundation of the contractual relationship, unable to reflect the characteristics of the doctor-patient relationship also contains ethical characteristic and state administrative intervention, and secondly, spiritual damage; close relatives in the undoubtedly belongs to the third party outside the contract opposite party loss, lack of legal support. Therefore, the spirit of the damage of close relatives in the compensation is not suitable for inclusion in the contract law.
In tort law, law, common law has begun to tort third party (even if the third people did not occur for bodily injury or property damage) due to mental damage due to the infringement compensation support; judicial practice, there are many countries for mental damage without death of close relatives in the appeal for support. Also, China legislative system and judicial practice has been included in the adjustment of tort law of compensation for spiritual damages, therefore increase the mental damage compensation in close relatives in the original legal provisions Chinese, whether from the perspective of jurisprudence and judicial practice, has its legitimacy and rationality, but also more convenient.
As for how to increase such provisions in China existing legislation system, because of close relatives in the mental damage is based on personal interests with attachment has been damaged, so it can be recognized based in patients with close relatives enjoy mental damage claim in patients without death on the legal form of mental damage in patients with close relatives in the tort litigation medical accident compensation in the project, as patients and close relatives in the same party, by the patient instead of close relatives in the appeal.
To not close relatives of mental damage compensation in medical accident death legislation can reduce medical accidents in patients after a family suffering in a certain extent, ease the doctor-patient contradiction. Hope that through this spiritual damage to the death of close relatives in the compensation problem of theory and judicial practice analysis and discussion. To be able to provide some feasible ideas for China legislation in this respect.
【學位授予單位】：華東政法大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2013
【分類號】：D922.16;D923
【參考文獻】
相關期刊論文 前10條
1 李永軍;非財產(chǎn)性損害的契約性救濟及其正當性——違約責任與侵權責任的二元制體系下的邊際案例救濟[J];比較法研究;2003年06期
2 吳文嬪;;論第三人合同權利的產(chǎn)生——以第三人利益合同為范式[J];比較法研究;2011年05期
3 郝秀輝;;論空難致第三人的精神損害賠償[J];當代法學;2012年01期
4 曾婉珊;;醫(yī)療事故賠償責任中美立法比較[J];法律與醫(yī)學雜志;2007年01期
5 魯曉明;;論純粹精神損害賠償[J];法學家;2010年01期
6 倪同木;夏萬宏;;違約非財產(chǎn)損害賠償問題研究——以《德國民法典》第253條之修改為中心[J];法學評論;2010年02期
7 葉名怡;;醫(yī)療合同責任理論的衰落——以法國法的演變?yōu)榉治鰧ο骩J];甘肅政法學院學報;2012年06期
8 朱曉峰;;精神損害賠償規(guī)則在財產(chǎn)侵害中的限制與適用——功能主義視角下的中德法律實踐比較[J];法治研究;2013年03期
9 蔡唱;左常午;;因生命健康權受到侵害所致反射損害研究——兼評我國民法草案的相關規(guī)定[J];湖南大學學報(社會科學版);2006年01期
10 韓松;;人身侵權損害賠償中的第三人損害及其賠償請求權[J];華東政法學院學報;2006年03期
相關博士學位論文 前1條
1 姜鳳武;醫(yī)療損害責任制度比較研究[D];大連海事大學;2012年
本文編號：1673590
本文鏈接：http://www.sikaile.net/falvlunwen/hetongqiyue/1673590.html
