本文所進行者係醫療行為與過失行為於刑法上關係之研究,論述之脈絡則從題目著手,依序探討醫療行為之定義暨範圍、醫療過失之意義、除罪化之正反見解、除罪化之可能方式,最後得出結論。 鑒於醫療科技之日新月異,醫療行為之定義不宜過於僵化,本文遂主張以行政院衛生署函釋見解為本,增加概括條款以修改醫療行為之定義。蓋唯有確定醫療行為之範圍後,除罪化之討論才能真正發揮實用,否則將淪為紙上談兵。至於醫療過失之認定方式與一般過失並無本質上差異,惟須參考醫療法之規定以確定行為人具體之醫療義務範圍,方有可能判斷行為人是否有過失。 醫療事故中之過失行為除罪化主要集中在引入比較法上重大過失概念之探討,但本文認為不但打亂我國刑法過失犯之體系架構,背後更重大之理由則是有違反平等原則之疑慮。 任何職業都有其風險存在,若刑法選擇對醫療行為作出讓步,必將失去人民對於法律公正性之信賴。其他職業難保不會群起效法,最終結果是,刑法成為有力團體所操弄之工具,此實非吾人所樂見,故本文結論認為醫療事故中之過失行為不應除罪化。
The research of the relationship in criminal law between medical treatment and negligent act started with defining the notion of medical treat, then the meaning of medical negligence, both the positive and the negative perspectives of the decriminalization subject, every possible ways of decriminalization and the final conclusion. According to the ever-changing medical technology, the definition of medical treatment should not be inflexible. It is necessary to add a general term to the current definition of medical treatment. Without determining it, the discussion of decriminalization would be worthless. There is no essential difference between medical negligence and criminal negligence. Only after consulting the medical law to find out the specific medical obligation scope, it is able to judge whether one has medical negligence or not. The discussion of decriminalization of medical negligence mainly focuses on the introduction of the concept of distinguishing different levels of negligence. However, it not only ruins the current criminal negligence theory in Taiwan but also violates the principle of equality. Every industry has its own risk. If the criminal law makes concessions on medical treatment, people will lose their trust for legal fairness. Perhaps other professions would ask for the same treat, the criminal law becomes the tool for their own interests. Thus, the negligent act in medical malpractice should not be in the decriminalization.