本文選題：醫(yī)療事故　切入點(diǎn)：患者近親屬　出處：《華東政法大學(xué)》2013年碩士論文

【摘要】：對(duì)于醫(yī)療事故發(fā)生后的賠償問(wèn)題，中國(guó)目前主要通過(guò)《醫(yī)療事故處理?xiàng)l例》、《最高人民法院關(guān)于確定民事侵權(quán)精神損害賠償責(zé)任若干問(wèn)題的解釋》等法律法規(guī)進(jìn)行調(diào)整。而該些法律并未對(duì)未死亡患者近親屬的精神損害賠償問(wèn)題進(jìn)行任何規(guī)定。 然而，患者未死亡（成為植物人、健康嚴(yán)重受損或癱瘓）的情況也會(huì)給其近親屬帶來(lái)嚴(yán)重的精神損害。這其中，不僅包括患者近親屬獲知醫(yī)療事故后遭受的剎那性的精神上的震驚和損害，也包括這之后在照顧未死亡患者的過(guò)程中產(chǎn)生的精神損害。如對(duì)患者近親屬的這類(lèi)精神損害繼續(xù)采取忽視態(tài)度，這無(wú)疑有悖于我國(guó)民法的公平原則，同時(shí)也不利于解決現(xiàn)今醫(yī)患關(guān)系日益緊張的尷尬現(xiàn)狀。故而，在我國(guó)法律體系中增加對(duì)未死亡患者近親屬的精神損害賠償?shù)囊?guī)定是勢(shì)在必行。 如撇開(kāi)中國(guó)的立法，醫(yī)療事故實(shí)際上既可視作醫(yī)務(wù)人員的侵權(quán)行為，也可視作醫(yī)務(wù)人員未按照與患者之間的醫(yī)療合同盡職履行合同義務(wù)導(dǎo)致的違約結(jié)果。故而從法理學(xué)角度，未死亡患者近親屬的精神損害賠償民事賠償責(zé)任既可存在于違約責(zé)任中，也可存在于侵權(quán)責(zé)任中。 但盡管各國(guó)法理和司法實(shí)踐對(duì)違約下的精神損害賠償在一定條件下給予了肯定（如涉及人身權(quán)利或利益的合同發(fā)生違約可提出精神損害訴求），但從違約責(zé)任角度對(duì)未死亡患者近親屬的精神損害給予賠償在目前卻不是一個(gè)好的途徑。因?yàn)橐粊?lái)，將醫(yī)療事故的基礎(chǔ)法律關(guān)系定義為合同關(guān)系，無(wú)法體現(xiàn)醫(yī)患關(guān)系中還包含著倫理特性及國(guó)家行政干預(yù)在內(nèi)的特性；二來(lái)，患者近親屬的精神損害無(wú)疑屬于合同相對(duì)方之外的第三方的損失，缺少法理上的支持。故此，患者近親屬的精神損害賠償并不適合納入合同法調(diào)整。 反觀侵權(quán)法，法理上，英美法系已開(kāi)始對(duì)侵權(quán)關(guān)系外第三方（即使該第三人未發(fā)生身體傷害或財(cái)產(chǎn)損害）因侵權(quán)行為導(dǎo)致的精神損害賠償給予支持；司法實(shí)踐方面，也有很多國(guó)家對(duì)于未死亡患者近親屬的精神損害訴求給予支持。而且，中國(guó)的立法體系和司法實(shí)踐已將精神損害賠償納入侵權(quán)法領(lǐng)域調(diào)整，故而在中國(guó)原有法律規(guī)定中增加患者近親屬的精神損害賠償，無(wú)論從法理學(xué)角度或是司法實(shí)踐，完全有其正當(dāng)性和合理性，也更加便利。 至于如何在中國(guó)現(xiàn)有立法體系中增加此類(lèi)規(guī)定，則鑒于患者近親屬的精神損害是依附于患者人身權(quán)益已先行受損的基礎(chǔ)之上，，故可在承認(rèn)患者近親屬在患者未死亡下享有精神損害求償權(quán)的基礎(chǔ)上,以法定形式將患者近親屬的精神損害納入醫(yī)療事故的侵權(quán)訴訟中的賠償項(xiàng)目中，視患者與患者近親屬為同一方當(dāng)事人，由患者代替患者近親屬提出訴求。 增加對(duì)醫(yī)療事故中未死亡患者近親屬精神損害賠償?shù)牧⒎�，能夠在一定程度上減輕醫(yī)療事故發(fā)生后患者家庭一方遭受的痛苦，緩和醫(yī)患矛盾。希望通過(guò)本文對(duì)未死亡患者近親屬的精神損害賠償問(wèn)題的理論基礎(chǔ)和司法實(shí)踐的梳理和探討，能夠?yàn)橹袊?guó)在此方面的立法處理提供一些可行的想法。
[Abstract]:The issue of compensation for medical treatment after the accident, Chinese mainly through "Regulations on handling medical accidents", "the Supreme People's court to adjust the issues of determining the spirit of tort liability for damages explanations of other laws and regulations. The law does not damage to the spirit of death of close relatives in the problems of any of the provisions.
However, patients with no death (a vegetative state, the serious health damage or paralysis) the situation will bring serious mental harm to their relatives. Among these, not only including close relatives in the informed medical accident after suffering a moment of spiritual shock and damage, including the mental damage after care and death of patients in the process of production. As of close relatives in this kind of spiritual damage to continue to take the attitude of neglect, this is contrary to the fair principle of civil law of our country, but also is not conducive to solve the embarrassing situation of the increasingly tense relationship between doctors and patients. Therefore, in our legal system, increase the provisions for compensation for mental damage is not the death of close relatives in the is imperative.
As Chinese aside the legislation of medical accident is regarded as medical tort, but also regarded as the medical staff and patients not in the medical contract due diligence obligation of contract caused by breach of contract results. So from the perspective of jurisprudence, not death of close relatives in the mental damage compensation of civil liability can exist in breach of contract that can also be found in the tort liability.
But despite the mental damage for breach of contract under the legal and judicial practice of other countries compensation given under certain conditions (such as that involving personal rights or interests of the contract breach can put forward the mental damage, mental damage on appeal) but not the death of close relatives in the perspective of compensation from liability for breach of contract in the present but not a good way. As a result, the medical accident is defined as the legal foundation of the contractual relationship, unable to reflect the characteristics of the doctor-patient relationship also contains ethical characteristic and state administrative intervention, and secondly, spiritual damage; close relatives in the undoubtedly belongs to the third party outside the contract opposite party loss, lack of legal support. Therefore, the spirit of the damage of close relatives in the compensation is not suitable for inclusion in the contract law.
In tort law, law, common law has begun to tort third party (even if the third people did not occur for bodily injury or property damage) due to mental damage due to the infringement compensation support; judicial practice, there are many countries for mental damage without death of close relatives in the appeal for support. Also, China legislative system and judicial practice has been included in the adjustment of tort law of compensation for spiritual damages, therefore increase the mental damage compensation in close relatives in the original legal provisions Chinese, whether from the perspective of jurisprudence and judicial practice, has its legitimacy and rationality, but also more convenient.
As for how to increase such provisions in China existing legislation system, because of close relatives in the mental damage is based on personal interests with attachment has been damaged, so it can be recognized based in patients with close relatives enjoy mental damage claim in patients without death on the legal form of mental damage in patients with close relatives in the tort litigation medical accident compensation in the project, as patients and close relatives in the same party, by the patient instead of close relatives in the appeal.
To not close relatives of mental damage compensation in medical accident death legislation can reduce medical accidents in patients after a family suffering in a certain extent, ease the doctor-patient contradiction. Hope that through this spiritual damage to the death of close relatives in the compensation problem of theory and judicial practice analysis and discussion. To be able to provide some feasible ideas for China legislation in this respect.

【學(xué)位授予單位】：華東政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2013
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D922.16;D923

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 李永軍;非財(cái)產(chǎn)性損害的契約性救濟(jì)及其正當(dāng)性——違約責(zé)任與侵權(quán)責(zé)任的二元制體系下的邊際案例救濟(jì)[J];比較法研究;2003年06期

2 吳文嬪;;論第三人合同權(quán)利的產(chǎn)生——以第三人利益合同為范式[J];比較法研究;2011年05期

3 郝秀輝;;論空難致第三人的精神損害賠償[J];當(dāng)代法學(xué);2012年01期

4 曾婉珊;;醫(yī)療事故賠償責(zé)任中美立法比較[J];法律與醫(yī)學(xué)雜志;2007年01期

5 魯曉明;;論純粹精神損害賠償[J];法學(xué)家;2010年01期

6 倪同木;夏萬(wàn)宏;;違約非財(cái)產(chǎn)損害賠償問(wèn)題研究——以《德國(guó)民法典》第253條之修改為中心[J];法學(xué)評(píng)論;2010年02期

7 葉名怡;;醫(yī)療合同責(zé)任理論的衰落——以法國(guó)法的演變?yōu)榉治鰧?duì)象[J];甘肅政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2012年06期

8 朱曉峰;;精神損害賠償規(guī)則在財(cái)產(chǎn)侵害中的限制與適用——功能主義視角下的中德法律實(shí)踐比較[J];法治研究;2013年03期

9 蔡唱;左常午;;因生命健康權(quán)受到侵害所致反射損害研究——兼評(píng)我國(guó)民法草案的相關(guān)規(guī)定[J];湖南大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2006年01期

10 韓松;;人身侵權(quán)損害賠償中的第三人損害及其賠償請(qǐng)求權(quán)[J];華東政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2006年03期

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 姜鳳武;醫(yī)療損害責(zé)任制度比較研究[D];大連海事大學(xué);2012年

本文編號(hào)：1673590