本文選題：醫(yī)療損害責(zé)任 + 舉證責(zé)任緩和　； 參考：《云南財(cái)經(jīng)大學(xué)》2015年碩士論文

【摘要】：醫(yī)患關(guān)系一直是社會(huì)關(guān)注的熱點(diǎn)和難點(diǎn),而醫(yī)療糾紛關(guān)系著醫(yī)患雙方的共同利益,如果不能有效解決這一問(wèn)題,將會(huì)使矛盾升級(jí)從而演變成社會(huì)問(wèn)題。在醫(yī)療損害糾紛中,由于醫(yī)療行為的專(zhuān)業(yè)性、復(fù)雜性和醫(yī)患關(guān)系的特殊性,舉證責(zé)任的分配對(duì)于當(dāng)事人能否實(shí)現(xiàn)其訴訟主張有著舉足輕重的作用。隨著我國(guó)醫(yī)療體制改革的不斷深入,《侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》對(duì)醫(yī)療損害的舉證責(zé)任分配問(wèn)題做出了新的規(guī)定,即以過(guò)錯(cuò)責(zé)任為原則、過(guò)錯(cuò)推定為補(bǔ)充,這在緩和醫(yī)患關(guān)系、促進(jìn)社會(huì)和諧等方面都起到了積極的作用。但是,《侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》摒棄舉證責(zé)任倒置的規(guī)定,在實(shí)踐中加重了患者的證明責(zé)任,使得醫(yī)患關(guān)系再次出現(xiàn)了不平衡�；诖�,本文從舉證責(zé)任分配的角度出發(fā),結(jié)合《侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》的相關(guān)規(guī)定,探討醫(yī)療損害舉證責(zé)任緩和規(guī)則的具體適用。本文共分為以下四個(gè)部分:第一部分是對(duì)舉證責(zé)任緩和規(guī)則的釋義。具體闡述何為舉證責(zé)任緩和規(guī)則,其與舉證責(zé)任倒置的區(qū)別,并解釋其適用的基本前提以及適用范圍,進(jìn)而從宏觀層面對(duì)這個(gè)概念進(jìn)行理解。第二部分審視我國(guó)醫(yī)療損害糾紛舉證責(zé)任分配三個(gè)階段的轉(zhuǎn)變歷程,并對(duì)每一階段舉證責(zé)任內(nèi)容的變化進(jìn)行評(píng)析,重點(diǎn)分析在《侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》適用中,舉證責(zé)任分配出現(xiàn)的問(wèn)題,以及適用舉證責(zé)任緩和規(guī)則的必要性。第三部分是對(duì)國(guó)外醫(yī)療損害糾紛中證明責(zé)任的分配規(guī)則進(jìn)行分析,包括德國(guó)法的“表見(jiàn)證明”原則、美國(guó)侵權(quán)法的“事實(shí)自證”原則,以及日本法的“大致推定”原則。通過(guò)對(duì)這幾種原則在內(nèi)容和適用情況等方面的比較,得出各國(guó)醫(yī)療損害糾紛中證明責(zé)任分配制度對(duì)我國(guó)醫(yī)療損害案件的啟示。第四部分是對(duì)醫(yī)療損害舉證責(zé)任緩和規(guī)則的具體構(gòu)建。文章仍將圍繞損害構(gòu)成四要件分析舉證責(zé)任緩和規(guī)則的適用,結(jié)合上述國(guó)外經(jīng)驗(yàn)和案例,重點(diǎn)闡述在過(guò)錯(cuò)和因果關(guān)系的證明上,法官應(yīng)當(dāng)如何適用舉證責(zé)任緩和規(guī)則。
[Abstract]:The relationship between doctors and patients has always been the focus and difficulty of the society, and medical disputes are related to the common interests of both doctors and patients. If this problem can not be solved effectively, it will lead to the escalation of contradictions and turn them into social problems.In medical injury disputes, due to the specialty, complexity and particularity of the doctor-patient relationship, the distribution of the burden of proof plays an important role in the realization of the litigant's claim.With the deepening of medical system reform in China, the Tort liability Law has made new provisions on the distribution of the burden of proof for medical damage, that is, taking fault liability as the principle and presumption of fault as a supplement, this is easing the doctor-patient relationship.Promoting social harmony and other aspects have played a positive role.However, the Tort liability Law abandons the provision of inversion of the burden of proof, intensifies the burden of proof of patients in practice, and makes the doctor-patient relationship appear imbalance again.Based on this, this paper, from the point of view of the distribution of the burden of proof, combined with the relevant provisions of the Tort liability Law, discusses the specific application of the mitigation rules of the burden of proof for medical damage.This paper is divided into the following four parts: the first part is the interpretation of the mitigation of the burden of proof.This paper expounds concretely what is the mitigation rule of the burden of proof and the difference between it and the inversion of the burden of proof, and explains the basic premise and application scope of its application, and then understands the concept from the macroscopic level.The second part examines the transition course of the three stages of burden of proof distribution in medical injury disputes in China, and analyzes the change of the content of burden of proof in each stage, focusing on the analysis of the application of the Tort liability Law.The problems in the distribution of burden of proof and the necessity of applying the abatement rule of burden of proof.The third part is an analysis of the distribution rules of burden of proof in medical injury disputes in foreign countries, including the principle of "proof of proof" in German law, the principle of "proof of fact" in American tort law, and the principle of "approximate presumption" of Japanese law.By comparing the contents and application of these principles, the author draws the enlightenment of burden of proof distribution system in medical injury disputes in various countries to medical injury cases in China.The fourth part is the concrete construction of the mitigation rules of burden of proof for medical injury.The article will still analyze the application of the mitigation rules of the burden of proof around the four elements of damage constitution, combining with the above foreign experiences and cases, focusing on how the judges should apply the mitigation rules of the burden of proof in the proof of fault and causality.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：云南財(cái)經(jīng)大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2015
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D923

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前6條

1 楊立新;;醫(yī)療損害責(zé)任一般條款的理解與適用[J];法商研究;2012年05期

2 龔星;;《侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》關(guān)于醫(yī)療損害責(zé)任規(guī)定的不足及完善[J];法制與社會(huì);2012年19期

3 艾爾肯;;醫(yī)療損害舉證責(zé)任之緩和規(guī)則[J];北方法學(xué);2014年05期

4 宋平;;我國(guó)醫(yī)療侵權(quán)舉證責(zé)任分配之反思與重構(gòu)[J];河北法學(xué);2010年06期

5 王峰;;醫(yī)療損害舉證責(zé)任分配制度研究[J];中國(guó)政法大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2013年05期

6 王瓊書(shū),王方;從“醫(yī)療舉證責(zé)任倒置”看防御性醫(yī)療[J];南京醫(yī)科大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2004年03期

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前3條

1 楊婧;侵權(quán)責(zé)任構(gòu)成之違法性要件研究[D];鄭州大學(xué);2012年

2 張英;一元處理機(jī)制下醫(yī)療損害責(zé)任制度研究[D];吉林大學(xué);2012年

3 秦雅靜;醫(yī)療侵權(quán)舉證責(zé)任分配制度研究[D];西南財(cái)經(jīng)大學(xué);2014年

，

本文編號(hào)：1755769