產前遺傳診斷失誤的損害賠償責任－從“新光醫院唐氏症事件”論我國民事責任法的新課題

Civil Liability for Error of Prenatal Genetic testing-New Challenges of Taiwan's Civil Liability Law

陳忠五(Chung-Wu Chen)

《臺大法學論叢》 34卷6期 (2005/11) Pp. 107-260

https://doi.org/10.6199/NTULJ.2005.34.06.03

摘要

懷孕婦女於生產前，爲恐生下患有先天性遺傳疾病嬰兒，乃赴醫院接受產前檢驗手術，嗣因醫護人員檢驗資料分析判讀上的失誤，告以檢驗結果正常，以致其在誤以爲胎兒身心正常，而未及時施行人然流產情形下，生下患有唐氏症等疾病的嬰兒。於此情形，該孕婦女本人、其配偶、甚至新生兒，是否得向醫院或相關醫護人員，請求損害賠償？得依據何種法律規定，請求損害賠償？得請求賠償多少損害？類此問題，屬新興的醫療糾紛型態。新光醫院唐氏症事件，即是典型代表性案例。
上開問題，是產前遺傳疾病診斷醫學技術發達、人工流產手術合法化、以及家庭生育計畫與優生保健觀念被普遍推行後，民事責任法不得不面對的問題。本文目的，即在探討：傳統民事責任法的理論與實務，如何或應該如何回應此等新興醫療糾紛型態所生的法律問題。
本文指出，類似新光醫院唐氏症事件的案例，性質上是一種「單純治療失敗」，不是「醫療意外事故」，不能適用消保法服務責任規定，而應適用民法契約責任或侵權責任相關規定，解決損害賠償問題。基於現行優生保健法的立法政策及相關規定意旨，解釋上應該認爲，懷孕婦女在符合該法規定要件下，有依其自願，決定或選擇是否施行人工流產的權利，稱爲「人縱流產自主決定權」。此一具有人格權性質的權利，專屬懷孕婦女本人，不屬於該婦女的配偶。懷孕婦女就其人不流產自主決定權被侵害後所生的損害，無論是子女出生後的「醫療費用」、「人力照顧費用」、「殊教育費用」，甚至是子女的「一般生活費用」，或是「慰撫金」、均得依民法契約責任或侵權責任相關規定，向醫療機構或醫事人員請求賠償。

關鍵字

醫療責任 ； 損害賠償 ； 產前遺傳診斷 ； 消費者保護法 ； 損害概念 ； 人工流產自主決定權 ； 權利或利益的正當性 ； 生活費用 ； 非財產上損害

並列摘要

After experiencing the first ecstatic joys brought by news of pregnancy, the future parents are immediately struck by hundreds, if not millions of concerns The list is endless, but the baby's mental and physical well-being is no doubt one on top of the list Taking prenatal genetic tests in order to ensure the chances of having a health child is common knowledge and practice in modern times.
But, what if the results of the medical tests were misjudged by doctors and medical engineers, and instead of the expected healthy baby, a child with hereditary disease or physical disability is born? Can the mother father or the child himself (herself) sue the hospital and the persons concerned for this mistake? Is there a 'right' that was violated by this act? What are the damages? After all, isn't 'life' itself the most miraculous and precious gift from God? In Taiwan, ＜the case of Shin-Kong Hospital's false negative result on prenatal testing for Down's syndrome＞ is a leading case in this new domain of medical liability.
The issues concerning the valuation of 'life', determination of 'worthy life' along with the debate of the legitimacy of women's 'right' of terminating pregnancy is of major importance in social policy philosophy, and religion The purpose of this article is to examine this scenario by point of view of civil liability Law.
Firstly, we point out that the problems in this case rise from 'medical error' instead of 'medical accident', therefore, the regulations in The Consumer Protection Act of Taiwan is not involved.
Secondly, we propose the idea that in this case, the pregnant women has a legitimate 'right to terminate pregnancy' on the basis of The Genetic Health Act of Taiwan. The right belongs to the pregnant women alone and is not shared by the spouse.
Finally, we agree that by making an error in the judging of prenatal genetic testing, the hospital and people concerned had violated the pregnant mother's 'right to terminate pregnancy'. Consequently, according to tort contractual liability regulations, they are responsible for the burden of extra expenses the parents have to bear in the situation of taking care of an unhealthy child (for example: medical payment, special-education expenses etc.). The expenses of child rearing and compensation of emotional distress should also be included.

並列關鍵字

medical liability ； compensation of damages ； prenatal genetic testing ； The Consumer Protection Act of Taiwan ； right to terminate pregnancy ； legitimacy of right or interest ； concept of damage ； expenses of chil

參考文獻

雷文玫(2004)。解構我國胚胎保護規範體系－發現父母生育自主的地位。台大法學論叢。33(4)

楊秀儀(2002)。病人，家屬，社會：論基因年代病患自主權可能之嶺展。台大法學論叢。31(5)

李震山(2002)。胚胎基因工程之法律涵意－以生命權保障為例。台大法學論叢。31(3)

陳忠五(2001)。法國侵權責任法上損害之概念。台大法學論叢。30(4)

陳聰富(2000)。侵權行為法上之因果關係。台大法學論叢。29(2)