【摘要】：論文主要探討醫(yī)療機(jī)構(gòu)在《中華人民共和國(guó)侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》(侵權(quán)責(zé)任法)落實(shí)之后的法律風(fēng)險(xiǎn)問(wèn)題。當(dāng)看病難,看病貴的醫(yī)療問(wèn)題無(wú)法得以緩和與解決,該法的有效性也就再次成為熱門(mén)的焦點(diǎn)議題。就看病難的問(wèn)題而言,它是一個(gè)醫(yī)療資源分配的問(wèn)題。只要政府能夠增加并提升現(xiàn)有的醫(yī)療資源,看病難的問(wèn)題是有望解決的。至于看病貴的問(wèn)題,它是以較為復(fù)雜的問(wèn)題。除了市場(chǎng)的供給,物價(jià)的攀升以及醫(yī)療技術(shù)的進(jìn)步等因素以外,醫(yī)療機(jī)構(gòu)所需承受的法律風(fēng)險(xiǎn)也是造成看病貴問(wèn)題的重要因素之一。然而,國(guó)內(nèi)外對(duì)于法律風(fēng)險(xiǎn)與看病貴之間的關(guān)系之研究實(shí)屬罕見(jiàn)。為了彌補(bǔ)這方面的欠缺,論文將著重于研究法律風(fēng)險(xiǎn)與看病貴的關(guān)系,并通過(guò)檢驗(yàn)《侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》內(nèi)有關(guān)醫(yī)療服務(wù)的條文,探討該法落實(shí)后對(duì)于解決看病貴問(wèn)題是否產(chǎn)生正面的影響。比較的方法基本上可被分為兩大類(lèi):同類(lèi)比較以及異類(lèi)比較。論文認(rèn)為同類(lèi)比較的方法一般無(wú)法凸顯問(wèn)題的實(shí)質(zhì)性與根本性。因此,論文選擇了異類(lèi)比較作為研究法律風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的方式。為此,論文選擇了普通法與《侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》做比較。事實(shí)上,將醫(yī)療機(jī)構(gòu)在《侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》下所需面對(duì)的法律風(fēng)險(xiǎn)與普通法作比較的做法,實(shí)屬首次。眾所周知,風(fēng)險(xiǎn)與成本是相輔相成的。論文堅(jiān)信若是醫(yī)療機(jī)構(gòu)的法律風(fēng)險(xiǎn)能夠減低,在綜合各方的努力下,看病貴的問(wèn)題,最終將有望得以緩和與解決。宏觀而言,有兩方面關(guān)于醫(yī)療服務(wù)的本質(zhì)是需要給予適當(dāng)?shù)年P(guān)注的;第一,醫(yī)療結(jié)果的非絕對(duì)性,以及第二,醫(yī)患之間的關(guān)系是屬于誠(chéng)信關(guān)系。就中國(guó)醫(yī)療服務(wù)的法律風(fēng)險(xiǎn)主要是因三個(gè)重要因素所造成的。第一,它是始于法律與司法制度過(guò)于保護(hù)患者利益的結(jié)果。這個(gè)結(jié)論主要是基于醫(yī)療機(jī)構(gòu)在民事訴訟中必須承擔(dān)過(guò)于沉重的舉證責(zé)任的規(guī)定。盡管保護(hù)患者利益是無(wú)可厚非的做法,可是醫(yī)療機(jī)構(gòu)也應(yīng)當(dāng)享有適當(dāng)?shù)姆杀Ｗo(hù)。第二,由于《侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》對(duì)于有關(guān)醫(yī)療服務(wù)法律的不確定性以及局限性,因而無(wú)法有效地控制醫(yī)療機(jī)構(gòu)的法律風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。這個(gè)看法是基于該法在多個(gè)有關(guān)醫(yī)療服務(wù)的條文中皆無(wú)法有效地確定審理醫(yī)療過(guò)失的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)與對(duì)于舉證標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的要求。第三,司法體制對(duì)于醫(yī)患糾紛判決的不一致性。中國(guó)法院的一些判例顯示,一旦出現(xiàn)醫(yī)患糾紛,醫(yī)療機(jī)構(gòu)所可能面對(duì)的結(jié)局有三大類(lèi):第一類(lèi)是過(guò)錯(cuò)責(zé)任類(lèi),第二類(lèi)是在調(diào)解下的雙贏類(lèi);以及第三類(lèi)是無(wú)過(guò)錯(cuò)類(lèi)。按照這個(gè)邏輯,論文首先探討法律風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的因果關(guān)系,中國(guó)與普通法有關(guān)醫(yī)療服務(wù)法律與判例的法律背景,后將《侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》與普通法做各方面比較,其中包括過(guò)錯(cuò)責(zé)任的承擔(dān)問(wèn)題,咨詢(xún)與告知義務(wù),舉證問(wèn)題,免責(zé)條款,緊急情況的問(wèn)題,隱私權(quán),醫(yī)療產(chǎn)品責(zé)任,以及不可抗力問(wèn)題。最后,論文以提出《侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》有關(guān)醫(yī)療服務(wù)的條文修正作為總結(jié)。
[Abstract]:This paper mainly discusses the legal risks of medical institutions after the implementation of the Tort liability Law of the people's Republic of China. When medical treatment is difficult and expensive medical problems can not be alleviated and solved, the effectiveness of the law becomes a hot issue again. As far as the difficulty of seeing a doctor is concerned, it is a problem of allocation of medical resources. As long as the government can increase and increase the existing medical resources, the problem is expected to be resolved. As for the expensive problem of seeing a doctor, it is a more complicated problem. In addition to the market supply, rising prices and advances in medical technology and other factors, medical institutions have to bear the legal risk is also one of the important factors that cause the problem of expensive medical treatment. However, research on the relationship between legal risk and expensive medical treatment is rare at home and abroad. In order to make up for this deficiency, the paper will focus on the relationship between legal risk and expensive medical treatment, and pass the examination of the provisions of the Tort liability Law on medical services. This paper discusses whether the implementation of this law has a positive effect on solving the problem of expensive medical treatment. Comparison methods can be basically divided into two categories: similar comparison and heterogeneity comparison. The paper thinks that the method of similar comparison can not highlight the substance and essence of the problem. Therefore, the paper chooses the heterogeneity comparison as the way to study the legal risk. Therefore, the paper chooses the common law and Tort liability Law to make a comparison. In fact, it is the first time to compare the legal risks faced by medical institutions under the Tort liability Act with the common law. As we all know, risk and cost complement each other. The paper firmly believes that if the legal risk of medical institutions can be reduced, with the efforts of all parties, the problem of expensive medical treatment will hopefully be alleviated and solved. Macroscopically, there are two aspects about the nature of medical service that need to be given due attention. First, the medical outcome is not absolute, and second, the relationship between doctors and patients belongs to the relationship of good faith. The legal risk of Chinese medical service is mainly caused by three important factors. First, it is the result of the fact that the legal and judicial systems are too protective of the interests of patients. This conclusion is mainly based on the requirement that medical institutions bear too heavy burden of proof in civil proceedings. While it is fair to protect the interests of patients, medical institutions should also enjoy adequate legal protection. Second, due to the uncertainty and limitation of the tort liability law, the legal risks of medical institutions cannot be effectively controlled. This view is based on the fact that the Act is unable to effectively determine the standard of adjudication of medical negligence and the standard of proof in several articles on medical services. Thirdly, the judicial system is inconsistent with the adjudication of doctor-patient disputes. Some cases of Chinese courts show that once there are doctor-patient disputes, medical institutions may face the outcome of three major categories: the first type is the category of fault liability, the second category is the win-win category under mediation; and the third category is the category of no-fault. According to this logic, the thesis first discusses the causality of legal risk, the legal background of medical service law and case law between China and the common law, and then compares the tort liability law with the common law. These include the assumption of fault liability, the obligation to consult and inform, the burden of proof, the exemption clause, the emergency, the right to privacy, the liability for medical products, and the issue of force majeure. Finally, the article proposes the tort liability law about the medical service article amendment as the summary.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：對(duì)外經(jīng)濟(jì)貿(mào)易大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：博士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2015
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D923

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前7條

1 付敏;;對(duì)醫(yī)療糾紛訴訟現(xiàn)狀的分析與思考[J];現(xiàn)代醫(yī)院;2008年10期

2 李霽,張懷承;醫(yī)學(xué)模式的演進(jìn)與患醫(yī)關(guān)系的變更[J];中國(guó)醫(yī)學(xué)倫理學(xué);2004年02期

3 楊同衛(wèi),陳曉陽(yáng);尋求醫(yī)療服務(wù)定價(jià)的第三方力量[J];中國(guó)醫(yī)學(xué)倫理學(xué);2004年06期

4 曹永福,王云嶺;論當(dāng)前我國(guó)醫(yī)療市場(chǎng)對(duì)醫(yī)患關(guān)系的影響[J];醫(yī)學(xué)與哲學(xué);2005年02期

5 沈銘賢;;醫(yī)者不可不慈仁,病者不可猜鄙——構(gòu)建和諧的醫(yī)患關(guān)系[J];醫(yī)學(xué)與哲學(xué)(人文社會(huì)醫(yī)學(xué)版);2007年12期

6 錢(qián)矛銳;;醫(yī)療侵權(quán)損害賠償“雙軌制”法律適用原則的困惑與反思[J];中國(guó)醫(yī)院管理;2007年09期

7 宋宇瑜,周全;醫(yī)患矛盾的現(xiàn)狀調(diào)查及尋求醫(yī)患關(guān)系平衡點(diǎn)的探索性研究[J];中國(guó)衛(wèi)生事業(yè)管理;2003年02期

，

本文編號(hào)：2165307