淺談法醫師之鑑定責任－以新冠疫苗風險與死亡之因果關係為例

由於醫學本身即充滿不確定性，如何正確判斷個案之死因儼然為更艱難之挑戰，法醫師，本於醫學專業知能，透過各種繁雜科學檢驗，試圖為不同個案探知其死亡真相之蛛絲馬跡，為其拼湊最後一塊人生中待解之拼圖。然而隨著2020年爆發COVID-19新冠肺炎嚴重疫情，截至2021年10月19日止，我國累計確診人數共有16,343名，隨著越來越多接種新冠肺炎疫苗（下稱「新冠疫苗」）後死亡之案例，法醫師們工作負擔變得更為沉重，在如此艱難之環境下，倘若個案家屬無法接受法醫師所做之死因鑑定結果，甚而走向司法訴訟主張法醫師鑑定結果有過失，則個案接種新冠疫苗潛在風險與其死亡之因果關係，在我國法律實務上將如何評價認定？法醫師的鑑定責任又是如何？種種疑竇隨著掀開死因真相之布幕，恐將衍生更多難解之謎，在在皆為極具深究價值之議題。本文將採以比較分析法，結合多元實務判決見解，針對法醫師之法定義務、鑑定責任、死亡之因果關係判斷等為說明，並輔以最高法院110年度台上字第1373號民事裁定之個案為例，討論該案在當事人主張法醫師鑑定結果有過失時，我國法院係如何認定的，並透過彙整該個案各審級法院之認定為比較性分析，茲供借鏡參酌。

關鍵字

法醫師；死因；疫苗風險；鑑定責任；因果關係

並列摘要

Due to the reason that medicine itself is full of uncertainty, how to correctly judge the cause of death in a case has become a difficult challenge. With the outbreak of COVID-19 in 2020, more and more cases dead after being vaccinated with the COVID-19 vaccine, the workload of a forensic physician has been heavier. Under such a difficult environment, if the family members cannot accept the forensic physician's judgement of the cause of death, they may claim that the forensic physician shall bear the responsibility of negligence. How will the causality of the potential risk of the COVID-19 vaccine and the cause of death be considered in our legal practice? How will the identification responsibility of a forensic physician be defined? To explain the legal obligations and the identification responsibility of a forensic physician and further discuss the causality of the cause of death, this article will adopt a comparative analysis method and further combine with multiple practical judgments, and will also take the judgement of Supreme Court (110 Taishang Zi No. 1373) as the discussion example.