透過您的圖書館登入
IP:3.236.234.62
  • 學位論文

末期病人及其親屬基本權利之研究-以歐洲人權法院判決為中心

A Study of Fundamental Rights of Dying Patients and Their Relatives - Focusing on Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights

指導教授 : 李建良
若您是本文的作者,可授權文章由華藝線上圖書館中協助推廣。

摘要


摘 要 安寧緩和醫療條例施行後,末期病人的拒絕急救權,在法律上自始有所依據。然而,法律上所賦予的權利,並不直接等同於憲法上的基本權利,末期病人在憲法的層次上,是否也具有拒絕急救的權利,甚至更進一步地去主張積極安樂死,當前還是一個未具有普遍共識的問題。此外,在醫療實務上,親屬意見往往對於末期病人的醫療決策,具有決定性的作用,由親屬代替末期病人而為醫療上的同意權,在憲法上是否也有所依據,同樣是十分重要的問題。 本文以末期病人求生求死的意願作為主軸,探討末期病人這類的意願,在憲法上有沒有可以依據的基本權利,以及這些權利的主張,在憲法上所可能產生的問題。本文也探討末期病人親屬的醫療上同意權,在憲法上層次上的議題。 本文是以歐洲人權法院的判決作為比較法探討的中心,歐洲人權法院在國際上具有相當的影響力,而在歐洲人權法院的審判經驗中,與生死議題相關的請求案件亦不在少數,足資作為研究參考的對象。 就結論上而言,本文研究後認為,國家畢竟有保護人民之義務,因此,雖然我國人民在憲法上,應該具有拒絕急救的基本權利,然而並不能夠更進一步地要求接受積極安樂死,或者加工自殺。親屬方面,醫療上的同意權,應該也是具有憲法上的位階,屬於家庭權的保障範圍,這樣的同意權,可以在符合憲法第二十三條的規定下予以限制。 最後,關於生死的問題,歐洲人權法院曾經在案件的審理程序中,允許宗教團體提出第三人意見,也是我國可以參考的方式。

並列摘要


Abstract Under the Palliative Care Statute, terminally ill patients are now entitled to refuse emergency or resuscitation treatment; however, there has been controversy regarding whether this right to autonomous decision-making would somehow be contradictory to constitutional human rights, and whether terminal patients have a constitutionally recognized right to claim active euthanasia. In addition, due to the fact that close relatives usually play decisive roles in terminal ill patients' choices of treatments, it has been a contentious issue whether close relatives are constitutionally legitimate to sign any consent document regarding medical treatments on the patient's behalf. Out of concern and respect for terminal patients' wish to live or to die, this study focuses on finding constitutional bases in support of abiding by decisions such as refusing a life-prolonging treatment or on the side of assisting close relatives in exercising consent on behalf of the patient, etc. Also, this study tackles disputable issues thereupon. Rulings of the European Court of Human Rights have been chosen as the primary frame of reference. Not only is ECHR internationally influential, it is also very experienced in dealing with to-live-or-to-die cases. As the state is duty bound to protect its people, this study suggests that active euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide not be considered as legitimate medical treatment even though a person is constitutionally entitled to refuse any resuscitation treatment. Meanwhile, where necessary, close relatives are entitled to act for terminally ill patients under the provision of constitutional family rights; this delegation, however, should in no way contradict Article 23 in the ROC Constitution. Lastly, as the European Court of Human Rights has authorized religious groups to be the third-party intervener while dealing with life-or-death medical issues, this study recommends such be adopted in our ruling system.

參考文獻


社團法人台灣露德協會,
吳志光主講,徐偉倫記錄整理,〈從死刑案例解讀歐洲社會的人文思考〉,《司法改革雜誌》,第四一期,民國九十一年十月,五○頁至五四頁。
李震山,〈從生命權與自決權之關係論生前預囑與安寧照護之法律問題〉,《人性尊嚴與人權保障》,修訂再版,二○○一年十一月,一二一頁至一五七頁。
王玉葉,〈歐洲人權法院審理原則──國家裁量餘地原則〉,歐美研究,第三十七卷第三期,二○○七年九月,四八五頁至五五一頁。
黃瓊慧,《論拒絕醫療之正當性──台灣安寧緩和醫療條例之評析》,台北大學法研所碩士論文,民國九十七年七月。

延伸閱讀