本文選題：醫(yī)療損害　切入點：侵權(quán)責(zé)任　出處：《新疆師范大學(xué)》2012年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：醫(yī)療損害責(zé)任既是社會關(guān)注的熱點問題，也是侵權(quán)責(zé)任法的難點問題，它深度體現(xiàn)了醫(yī)患雙方的博弈和妥協(xié)。醫(yī)療行為的特殊性決定了醫(yī)療損害責(zé)任與其他侵權(quán)責(zé)任的不同。立法者不僅要在醫(yī)療機構(gòu)和患者之間平衡利益，而且還要在醫(yī)療衛(wèi)生事業(yè)的長遠(yuǎn)發(fā)展與全體患者利益之間做出價值取舍�！肚謾�(quán)責(zé)任法》統(tǒng)一了醫(yī)療損害責(zé)任的概念，終結(jié)了二元化的賠償標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，對解決醫(yī)療糾紛有重大意義。但一些問題仍未從根本上解決。本文從醫(yī)療損害責(zé)任的概念入手，明確醫(yī)療損害責(zé)任性質(zhì)——從有利于保護(hù)患者合法權(quán)益出發(fā)，定性為侵權(quán)責(zé)任性質(zhì)，闡述了醫(yī)療損害的法理基礎(chǔ)，指出了醫(yī)療損害責(zé)任制度的不足，提出了完善醫(yī)療損害責(zé)任制度的建議。 文章正文分為四個部分： 第一部分為醫(yī)療損害責(zé)任概述。首先界定了醫(yī)療事故、非醫(yī)療事故，進(jìn)而定義醫(yī)療損害責(zé)任，明確醫(yī)療損害責(zé)任的性質(zhì)為侵權(quán)責(zé)任。其次，闡述醫(yī)療行為概念和特征。 第二部分為醫(yī)療損害責(zé)任的構(gòu)成要件。這是本文的理論難點。首先，論述醫(yī)療損害責(zé)任的歸責(zé)原則，以過錯責(zé)任原則為主，輔之推定過錯原則和無過錯原則。其次，闡述醫(yī)療損害責(zé)任的構(gòu)成要件，即醫(yī)療過錯、損害事實、醫(yī)療過錯與損害事實存在因果關(guān)系，并對醫(yī)療過錯的認(rèn)定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，損害范圍和因果關(guān)系的認(rèn)定進(jìn)行了探討。再次，介紹了我國《侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》規(guī)定免責(zé)事由，分析了免責(zé)事由的依據(jù)。然后，界定醫(yī)學(xué)事故技術(shù)鑒定與醫(yī)療過錯司法鑒定，，厘清了二者之間的關(guān)系。最后，考察了國外醫(yī)療損害訴訟中舉證責(zé)任分配，闡述了我國醫(yī)療損害訴訟中的舉證責(zé)任分配的立法選擇。 第三部分對醫(yī)療損害責(zé)任制度的不足進(jìn)行了探析。我國《侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》雖然統(tǒng)一了醫(yī)療損害責(zé)任概念、賠償標(biāo)準(zhǔn)等，但現(xiàn)行醫(yī)療損害責(zé)任仍存在一些問題：二元化的醫(yī)療損害鑒定制度仍未解決；舉證責(zé)任的分配仍不盡合理；未規(guī)定醫(yī)療損害賠償限額制度；醫(yī)療機構(gòu)的免責(zé)事由規(guī)定得不夠周全；未規(guī)定醫(yī)療責(zé)任保險制度；未構(gòu)建多元化的解決醫(yī)療損害賠償糾紛的途徑。 第四部分為完善醫(yī)療損害責(zé)任的建議。這是該文的落腳點。針對醫(yī)療損害責(zé)任存在的問題，提出了相關(guān)立法建議：統(tǒng)一醫(yī)療損害責(zé)任鑒定制度，完善專家輔助人制度；實行舉證責(zé)任緩和制度；建立醫(yī)療損害賠償限額制度；增加醫(yī)療機構(gòu)免責(zé)事由的情形；建立醫(yī)療損害責(zé)任保險制度；建立醫(yī)療損害責(zé)任糾紛仲裁制度，完善醫(yī)療糾紛調(diào)解制度。
[Abstract]:Medical damage liability is not only a hot issue of social concern, but also a difficult problem in tort liability law. It deeply reflects the game and compromise between doctors and patients. The particularity of medical behavior determines the difference between medical damage liability and other tort liability. Moreover, it is necessary to make a value trade-off between the long-term development of medical and health undertakings and the interests of all patients. The Tort liability Law unifies the concept of medical damage liability and ends the dualistic standard of compensation. It is of great significance to solve medical disputes. However, some problems have not been solved fundamentally. This paper starts with the concept of medical damage liability, and clarifies the nature of medical injury liability-from the point of view of helping to protect the legitimate rights and interests of patients, This paper expounds the legal basis of medical injury, points out the deficiency of medical damage liability system, and puts forward some suggestions to perfect the medical damage liability system. The text of the article is divided into four parts:. The first part is an overview of medical damage liability. Firstly, it defines medical malpractice and non-medical malpractice, then defines medical damage liability, and clarifies that the nature of medical damage liability is tort liability. Secondly, it expounds the concept and characteristics of medical behavior. The second part is the constitutive requirements of medical damage liability. This is the theoretical difficulty in this paper. Firstly, the principle of liability for medical damage is discussed, which is mainly based on the principle of fault liability, supplemented by the principle of presumption of fault and the principle of no fault. This paper expounds the constitutive elements of medical damage liability, that is, medical fault, damage fact, medical fault and damage fact, and discusses the criterion of medical fault, the scope of damage and the determination of causality. This paper introduces the reasons of exemption provided by Tort liability Law in our country, and analyzes the basis of exemption. Then, it defines the technical identification of medical accident and the judicial identification of medical fault, and clarifies the relationship between them. This paper investigates the distribution of burden of proof in medical injury litigation abroad, and expounds the legislative choice of burden of proof distribution in medical injury litigation of our country. The third part analyzes the deficiency of medical damage liability system. Although the Tort liability Law unifies the concept of medical damage liability, compensation standards, etc. However, there are still some problems in the present medical damage liability: the dualistic medical damage appraisal system is still unsolved, the distribution of the burden of proof is still not reasonable, the limitation system of medical damage compensation is not stipulated; The disclaimer of medical institution is not well defined, the medical liability insurance system is not stipulated, and the way to solve the dispute of medical damage compensation is not constructed. Part 4th is the suggestion to perfect the liability for medical injury. This is the foothold of this article. In view of the problems existing in the liability for medical injury, the author puts forward some legislative suggestions: unifying the system of medical damage liability appraisal and perfecting the system of expert assistant; Implement the system of easing the burden of proof; establish the limitation system of medical damages compensation; increase the circumstances of medical institutions exemption from liability; establish the medical damage liability insurance system; establish the arbitration system of medical damage liability disputes; improve the mediation system of medical disputes.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：新疆師范大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2012
【分類號】：D923.2

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 艾爾肯;;論醫(yī)療損害[J];北方法學(xué);2008年02期

2 龔賽紅;論醫(yī)療損害責(zé)任的競合[J];北京化工大學(xué)學(xué)報(社會科學(xué)版);2003年04期

3 林文學(xué);;《侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》醫(yī)療損害責(zé)任規(guī)定若干問題探析[J];法律適用;2010年07期

4 解娜娜;;醫(yī)療損害案件中的機會喪失理論[J];法學(xué)雜志;2010年04期

5 廖秉靜;;醫(yī)療侵權(quán)糾紛解決的現(xiàn)狀分析及其完善[J];廣東醫(yī)學(xué)院學(xué)報;2007年01期

6 柯陽友;吳英旗;;我國醫(yī)療糾紛解決機制之重構(gòu)[J];甘肅政法學(xué)院學(xué)報;2006年06期

7 艾爾肯;;論醫(yī)療損害責(zé)任構(gòu)成要件[J];西部法學(xué)評論;2010年03期

8 江玉榮;醫(yī)療事故技術(shù)鑒定證據(jù)合法性探析[J];安徽警官職業(yè)學(xué)院學(xué)報;2005年02期

9 梁慧星;;我國《侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》的幾個問題[J];暨南學(xué)報(哲學(xué)社會科學(xué)版);2010年03期

10 楊傳蘭;;醫(yī)療糾紛可仲裁性的法理思考[J];遼寧醫(yī)學(xué)院學(xué)報(社會科學(xué)版);2009年04期

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 余暮;醫(yī)療糾紛中的侵權(quán)責(zé)任[D];華東政法大學(xué);2010年

2 高玉玲;醫(yī)患關(guān)系論——解決醫(yī)療糾紛的法理研究[D];南京師范大學(xué);2004年

3 吳蕾;醫(yī)患關(guān)系若干法律問題研究[D];武漢理工大學(xué);2006年

4 沈志婷;醫(yī)患法律關(guān)系性質(zhì)研究[D];華東政法學(xué)院;2006年

5 何俊;醫(yī)療損害民事責(zé)任制度研究[D];上海海事大學(xué);2006年

6 張德琦;醫(yī)療損害賠償若干問題研究[D];山東大學(xué);2007年

7 王利海;醫(yī)療侵權(quán)責(zé)任研究[D];鄭州大學(xué);2007年

8 周謹(jǐn);醫(yī)療損害賠償法律問題研究[D];山東大學(xué);2008年

9 王海勇;劉某醫(yī)療糾紛案的法律分析[D];蘭州大學(xué);2010年

10 周紹月;非醫(yī)療事故的醫(yī)療損害賠償問題研究[D];西南政法大學(xué);2010年

本文編號：1613295