本文選題：醫(yī)療侵權(quán) + 舉證責(zé)任��； 參考：《中國社會(huì)科學(xué)院研究生院》2015年碩士論文

【摘要】：在我國醫(yī)患關(guān)系日益緊張、醫(yī)療侵權(quán)案件不斷增加的大環(huán)境下,《中華人民共和國侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》(以下簡稱“《侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》”)徹底推翻了《最高人民法院關(guān)于民事訴訟證據(jù)的若干規(guī)定》(以下簡稱“《證據(jù)規(guī)則》”)中對醫(yī)療侵權(quán)案件舉證責(zé)任的分配,從舉證責(zé)任倒置恢復(fù)成了一般的舉證責(zé)任。這既有其先進(jìn)之處,也有值得商榷和探討的地方。本文主要從以下幾個(gè)方面分析我國對醫(yī)療侵權(quán)案件不同舉證責(zé)任分配制度的優(yōu)點(diǎn)和不足,并力爭探討、分析出一個(gè)適合于我國當(dāng)前國情的解決方案。第一部分闡述了《證據(jù)規(guī)則》和《侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》對醫(yī)療侵權(quán)案件舉證責(zé)任的不同規(guī)定。首先是《證據(jù)規(guī)則》規(guī)定的舉證責(zé)任倒置制度存在的弊端。該段在總結(jié)了《侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》頒布前部分學(xué)者的觀點(diǎn),對弊端進(jìn)行了總結(jié),主要有四點(diǎn):1.醫(yī)方易舉證不能,因立法原因處于訴訟的劣勢地位;2.鼓勵(lì)了惡意訴訟,導(dǎo)致醫(yī)療侵權(quán)案件激增;3.導(dǎo)致醫(yī)方“防御型醫(yī)療”的增加;4.阻礙了醫(yī)療科學(xué)的發(fā)展。其次是《侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》對醫(yī)療侵權(quán)案件舉證責(zé)任的修改,以及修改后的不足。在修改方面主要對比了頒布前后的差別所在。在修改后的不足方面,主要從法律規(guī)定內(nèi)容的前后重復(fù)、邏輯混亂、因果關(guān)系證明責(zé)任缺失和醫(yī)療鑒定制度有缺陷這四個(gè)方面進(jìn)行了分析。第二部分借鑒了大陸法系和英美法系法律制度較先進(jìn)國家的優(yōu)秀制度。主要包括德國的“表見證明”制度和“重大醫(yī)療過錯(cuò)的證明責(zé)任倒置”制度;日本的“大致推定”制度;法國對于醫(yī)療侵權(quán)案件的處理經(jīng)驗(yàn);英國的“勃拉姆”規(guī)則、“若無則不”規(guī)則以及美國的“流派分歧”原則。第三部分在第一、二部分分析的基礎(chǔ)上,借鑒了第三部分的優(yōu)秀制度,對我國目前的醫(yī)療侵權(quán)案件舉證責(zé)任制度提出了建議。主要建議有以下五點(diǎn):1.完善對過錯(cuò)的證明責(zé)任;2.明確對因果關(guān)系的證明責(zé)任;3.增加醫(yī)方的醫(yī)療資料保管責(zé)任和提供責(zé)任;4.完善醫(yī)療鑒定制度;5.以較柔和的方式對現(xiàn)有制度進(jìn)行修正和改善,如司法解釋和指導(dǎo)案例的方式。最后一部分為本文的結(jié)論,結(jié)論中總結(jié)了本文的主要內(nèi)容和主題思想,并提出了本文的不足和值得改進(jìn)之處。
[Abstract]:In our country, the relationship between doctors and patients is increasingly tense. In the general environment of increasing medical tort cases, the Tort liability Law of the people's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as "the Tort liability Law") has completely overturned the provisions of the Supreme people's Court on evidence in civil proceedings. The distribution of the burden of proof in medical tort cases, The inversion of the burden of proof has been restored to the general burden of proof. This not only has its advanced place, also has the place which is worth discussing and the discussion. This paper analyzes the advantages and disadvantages of different burden of proof distribution system in medical tort cases from the following aspects, and tries to explore a solution suitable for the current situation of our country. The first part expounds the different provisions of the rules of evidence and the Tort liability Law on the burden of proof in medical tort cases. The first is the malpractice of the inverted system of burden of proof stipulated in the rules of evidence. This section summarizes the views of some scholars before the promulgation of the Tort liability Law, and summarizes the disadvantages, mainly four points: 1. The doctor is easy to prove that cannot, because of legislation reason is in the inferior position of litigation 2. Encouraged malicious litigation, leading to a proliferation of medical infringement cases. This has led to an increase in defensive medical care. It hinders the development of medical science. Secondly, the tort liability law modifies the burden of proof in medical tort cases, and the deficiency. In the aspect of revision, the difference between before and after promulgation is compared. In the aspect of deficiency after revision, this paper mainly analyzes four aspects: the repetition of legal provisions, the confusion of logic, the lack of causality burden of proof and the defect of medical appraisal system. The second part draws lessons from the excellent system of civil law system and Anglo-American legal system. It mainly includes the system of "apparent proof" and "inversion of burden of proof" in Germany; the system of "approximate presumption" in Japan; the experience of France in dealing with cases of medical tort; and the rules of "Bram" in Britain. The rule of "if nothing is not" and the "school difference" principle of the United States. Based on the analysis of the first and second parts, the third part draws lessons from the excellent system of the third part, and puts forward some suggestions on the present system of burden of proof in medical tort cases in our country. The main suggestions are as follows: 5: 1. Perfect the burden of proof of fault. Make clear the burden of proof of causality. Increase the medical data custody responsibility and provide responsibility. Perfecting the Medical Appraisal system. To amend and improve the existing system in a softer way, such as judicial interpretation and guidance of cases. The last part is the conclusion of this paper, which summarizes the main contents and main ideas of this paper, and puts forward the shortcomings and worthy of improvement.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：中國社會(huì)科學(xué)院研究生院
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2015
【分類號(hào)】：D923

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 蕭曉暉,喬寧;從舉證責(zé)任倒置談防御性醫(yī)療[J];當(dāng)代醫(yī)學(xué);2003年11期

2 葉家紅;;醫(yī)療侵權(quán)糾紛的因果關(guān)系之管見——從羅某與某市人民醫(yī)院醫(yī)療侵權(quán)糾紛談起[J];經(jīng)濟(jì)研究導(dǎo)刊;2010年04期

3 石曉華;;醫(yī)療侵權(quán)訴訟中舉證倒置與專家舉證問題的思考[J];內(nèi)蒙古農(nóng)業(yè)大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2007年04期

4 常紀(jì)文;;醫(yī)療損害糾紛處理的若干法律問題——兼論《侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》的不足及其完善[J];中國政法大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2010年02期

5 張倩;;論醫(yī)療侵權(quán)責(zé)任構(gòu)成中因果關(guān)系的判定[J];中國司法鑒定;2008年S1期

6 徐青松;建立科學(xué)的醫(yī)療糾紛處理準(zhǔn)則的法學(xué)思考[J];社會(huì)科學(xué);2000年08期

7 張新寶;明俊;;醫(yī)療過失舉證責(zé)任研究——比較法的經(jīng)驗(yàn)與我國的實(shí)踐[J];河南省政法管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2006年04期

8 周翠;;《侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》體系下的證明責(zé)任倒置與減輕規(guī)范與德國法的比較[J];中外法學(xué);2010年05期

9 楊秀清;;醫(yī)療行為侵權(quán)訴訟舉證責(zé)任分配之探討[J];新疆大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)·人文社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2011年03期

10 陳明國;;論醫(yī)療侵權(quán)糾紛案件的舉證責(zé)任[J];西南政法大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2006年05期

，

本文編號(hào)：1973921