論醫師醫療行為之注意義務－評最高法院100年度台上字第2256號民事判決

Discussing the Standard of Care for Physician's Medical Malpractice-An Analysis on Judgment Tai-Shan-Zi No.2256 (Supreme. Court., 2011)

邱慧洳(Hui-Ju Chiu)

《法令月刊》 66卷2期 (2015/02) Pp. 58-75

https://doi.org/10.6509/TLM.2015.6602.04

摘要

我國實務與通說認為應以行為人是否怠於善良管理人之注意義務論斷過失之有無。基於醫療行為之高度專業性，我國法院通常多採用醫療常規作為判斷醫師醫療行為是否符合注意義務之依據，倘醫師之醫療行為符合醫療常規，則已盡注意義務。惟醫療常規係指一般醫師所依循之醫療行為模式，而非理性醫師應為之醫療行為，採取醫療常規標準論斷醫療過失，顯然降低醫師應有之注意義務。外國法院判決已揚棄以醫療常規作為判斷醫療過失之唯一基準，而改採其他標準，諸如英美法院改採理性醫師標準，而日本法院則改採醫療水準理論。本文參照我國司法實務與學說見解並參照外國立法，評釋最高法院100年度台上字第2256號民事判決以醫療常規作為判斷注意義務之標準是否妥適。

關鍵字

醫療行為 ； 注意義務 ； 醫療常規 ； 醫療水準 ； 理性醫師標準

並列摘要

The mainstream and judicial opinions in Taiwan adopted the standard of abstract reasonable prudent person to determine the negligence. Due to the professionalism of medical practice, the courts in Taiwan created medical customs to be the standard of care for physician in torts litigation. If the physician's medical practices complies with medical customs, the standard of care is met. However, the standard of medical custom is lower than that of reasonable prudent physician since it endows physicians with more privileges than ordinary defendants. Judgments of foreign courts have abandoned medical customs as the only benchmark to judge the medical malpractice, but adopted other standards instead, such as the reasonable prudent physician's standard of care adopted by the Anglo-American court and the so called ＂medical level＂ adopted by the Japanese court. This paper, with reference to the mainstream and judicial opinions and with reference to foreign legislation, analyzes whether that the judgment Tai-San-Zi. No. 2256 (Supreme Court., 2011) adopted the standard of medical customs to judge medical malpractice is appropriate or not.

並列關鍵字

Medical Malpractice ； Standard of Care ； Medical Customs ； Medical Level ； Reasonable Physician's Standard of Care

參考文獻

王千維(2001)。民事損害賠償責任法上「違法性」問題初探（下）。政大法學評論。67，143-226。

王至弘(2010)。注意義務認定與醫療過失責任之探討─兼論骨科醫療訴訟判決類型與評析(碩士論文)。東吳大學法律研究所。

王澤鑑(2000)。侵權行為法。臺北:自版。

古振暉(2012)。論醫師在計畫外生育事件的注意義務與說明義務。法學叢刊。57(4)，95-129。

朱柏松(1998)。適用消保法論斷醫師之責任。國立臺灣大學法學論叢。27(4)，3-72。