由安寧緩和醫療條例與病人自主權利法之立法重新檢視刑法上生命法益處分權之概念

Re-examining the Concept of the Right to Dispose of Life in Criminal Law by the Legislation of the Hospice Palliative Care Act. and the Patient Autonomy Rights Act.

何彥霆(YEN-TING HO)

指導教授 ： 鄭逸哲

國立臺北大學/法律學院/法律學系一般生組/碩士(2016年)

摘要

在現代醫學維生技術的發達下，許多面臨末期的病人可以藉由醫學技術延續生命徵象，然而在面臨這種必然到來的死亡時，此類維生技術有時反而會造成末期病人更痛苦的死亡過程。因此，對於這樣的維生技術，是否應賦予末期病人選擇空間，使其得拒絕之，毋寧是需要思考的議題。然而問題在於，法律以一種強制自我保護的規定，禁止了人民對於自身生命身體法益的處分權，而這種強制自我保護的規定是否具有正當性，以及當此類以保護為目的禁止規定實際上與人民福祉發生衝突時，又應如何處理，乃本文處理之重點。
本文係以中外文獻整理、我國法規詮釋、醫界與法界的實務發展、並參考比較美國法例作為研究方法。架構上共分五章，第一章即緒論，第二章為生命法益處分權限制與其背後合法性與正當性的討論，第三章係分析急救義務的法律定性，以推測其刑法效果與生命法益處分權之間的關聯性，第四章乃就病人自主權的發展為介紹，第五章則為本文結論。
結論上，本文認為：一、生命法益處分權的限制具有正當性；二、現行刑法第二七五條不允許任何對於生命法益的自願性處分；三、醫療義務與急救義務係平行且部分重疊的概念；四、急救義務將構成刑法上的保證人義務；五、醫療上的病人自主權不等於刑法上的被害人自決權；六、病人自主權的刑法意義至多得作為業務上正當行為的補充性要件；七、應正確區分病人自主權與善終權；八、善終權並非生命法益處分權而是選擇進入死亡方式的權利；九、保障善終之餘亦應建立醫護人員免於訟累的程序保障。

關鍵字

生命法益處分 ； 加工自殺 ； 急救義務 ； 病人自主權 ； 善終權

並列摘要

By the development of modern medicine, life-maintaining technology can now prolong lives of many terminal patients. However, when facing the inevitable death, such subsistence technology sometimes may cause even more pain for the terminally ill. It is a debatable issue whether the patients should be given the opportunity for adopting such treatment for prolonging their lives; whether the mandatory provision of prohibiting the right to dispose one’s life has its legitimacy. How should we deal with this conflicts of mandated protection of one’s life and one’s free will of choosing? When considering the welfare of the terminally ill, what’s the “right” thing to do?
This dissertation will review some of the domestic and foreign literatures, the common interpretation of existing laws and regulations, the practical development in medical community and the legal professions, and the comparison with the legislation of United States. The structure of the thesis will be divided into five chapters: the introduction, the discussion on the legality and legitimacy of limiting one’s rights to dispose of their lives, the analyzation of the legal characterization of the emergency obligations in order to speculate its penal effects and the relevance with the right to dispose of life, the introduction of the development of patient autonomy rights, and lastly, the conclusion.
In conclusions, the study suggests that: 1. The limits of the right to dispose of life can be justified; 2. The current Penal Code §275 does not allow any voluntarily dispose of life; 3. The medical obligations and the emergency obligations are parallel and sometime overlapping concepts; 4. The emergency obligations should be considered as the surety obligation in criminal law; 5. The patient autonomy rights in medical does not equal to the victims self-determination right in criminal law; 6. The significance of the patient autonomy rights in criminal law at most should be considered as a supplementary requirement of a proper act performed in the course of business; 7. Hospice rights should be distinguished from patient autonomy rights; 8. Hospice rights is not the right to dispose one’s life, but the right to choose one’s way of dying; 9. Procedural safeguard should be established in order to protect health care workers from litigation procedures.

並列關鍵字

Right to dispose of life ； Assisted suicide ； Emergency obligations ； Patient autonomy rights ； Hospice Rights

參考文獻

1.王皇玉，論施用毒品行為之犯罪化，臺大法學論叢，第33卷，第6期，2004年11月。

4.王維慶、朱怡康、蔡甫昌，無效醫療（medical futiliy），當代醫學，第32卷，第7期，2005年7月。

8.邱泰源，「末期醫療照護之常見倫理困境與決策」，澄清醫護管理雜誌，第3卷，第3期，2007年7月。

3.王志嘉，末期病人生命身體法益的處分－談安寧緩和醫療條例立修法後的現況與展望，醫療品質雜誌，第9卷，第2期，2015年3月。

7.吳振吉、蔡甫昌，簡評「病人自主權利法」及其影響，台灣醫院協會，醫院雙月刊，2016年2月。