發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-10-18 19:12

【摘要】：近年來,醫(yī)療產(chǎn)品損害糾紛不斷增多,醫(yī)患關(guān)系趨于緊張,成為社會(huì)關(guān)注的熱點(diǎn)問題之一。隨著公眾法律意識(shí)和權(quán)利意識(shí)的不斷增強(qiáng),對(duì)于發(fā)生醫(yī)療損害后的權(quán)利救濟(jì)問題的研究具有現(xiàn)實(shí)意義。在我國(guó)司法實(shí)踐中,對(duì)于醫(yī)療活動(dòng)造成損害的糾紛在不同時(shí)期有著不同的處理方式。在侵權(quán)責(zé)任法施行之前,發(fā)生醫(yī)療損害糾紛之后患者維權(quán)首先要進(jìn)行醫(yī)療事故鑒定,根據(jù)鑒定結(jié)果確定不同的處理方式。侵權(quán)責(zé)任法施行之后,對(duì)于醫(yī)療損害糾紛的處理發(fā)生了重大變化,侵權(quán)責(zé)任法對(duì)醫(yī)療損害責(zé)任進(jìn)行了具體規(guī)定,對(duì)于發(fā)生醫(yī)療損害糾紛,醫(yī)療事故鑒定不是必經(jīng)程序,可以直接請(qǐng)求相關(guān)責(zé)任人承擔(dān)損害賠償責(zé)任。我國(guó)侵權(quán)責(zé)任法第五十九條對(duì)醫(yī)療產(chǎn)品侵權(quán)責(zé)任進(jìn)行了專門規(guī)定,醫(yī)療產(chǎn)品侵權(quán)責(zé)任涉及到了一般醫(yī)療侵權(quán)責(zé)任以及產(chǎn)品責(zé)任,涉及的主體也不僅僅是患者和醫(yī)療機(jī)構(gòu),還包括與醫(yī)療產(chǎn)品相關(guān)的第三方。在實(shí)踐中,對(duì)于醫(yī)療產(chǎn)品侵權(quán)責(zé)任的認(rèn)定、歸責(zé)原則的運(yùn)用以及確定責(zé)任的承擔(dān)等面臨了諸多難題,如醫(yī)療產(chǎn)品侵權(quán)責(zé)任與一般醫(yī)療損害責(zé)任如何區(qū)分;醫(yī)療產(chǎn)品侵權(quán)責(zé)任中醫(yī)療機(jī)構(gòu)是否作為銷售者地位承擔(dān)責(zé)任;產(chǎn)品缺陷與損害結(jié)果之間存在因果關(guān)系的證明責(zé)任應(yīng)該如何分配等等。本文通過對(duì)實(shí)踐中的案例及司法判決進(jìn)行分析,提出相關(guān)問題,研究醫(yī)療產(chǎn)品侵權(quán)責(zé)任的歸責(zé)原則以及構(gòu)成要件,并與一般產(chǎn)品損害責(zé)任及一般醫(yī)療損害責(zé)任進(jìn)行分析比較,討論我國(guó)現(xiàn)行法律存在不足并提出相關(guān)完善建議,以期完善醫(yī)療產(chǎn)品侵權(quán)責(zé)任法律制度,保護(hù)當(dāng)事人的合法權(quán)益。本文共分為五章:第一章以實(shí)踐中發(fā)生的一起醫(yī)療損害責(zé)任糾紛案件為例,分析醫(yī)療產(chǎn)品損害責(zé)任在實(shí)踐中的爭(zhēng)議焦點(diǎn),對(duì)該案法院的一審、二審判決的論證部分、法律運(yùn)用、判決結(jié)果以及存在的差異進(jìn)行研究思考,從我國(guó)醫(yī)療產(chǎn)品侵權(quán)責(zé)任的法律制度及司法實(shí)踐方面提出相關(guān)問題。第二章介紹醫(yī)療產(chǎn)品侵權(quán)責(zé)任的一般理論,在歸責(zé)原則方面,介紹世界其他主要國(guó)家的相關(guān)法律制度,分析學(xué)界存在的幾種觀點(diǎn),包括過錯(cuò)責(zé)任說、無過錯(cuò)責(zé)任說以及綜合說。對(duì)我國(guó)醫(yī)療產(chǎn)品侵權(quán)責(zé)任歸責(zé)原則進(jìn)行分析并提出其中存在的不足之處。第三章對(duì)醫(yī)療產(chǎn)品侵權(quán)責(zé)任的構(gòu)成要件進(jìn)行認(rèn)真分析,結(jié)合本文所引用的案例,重點(diǎn)研究在實(shí)踐中醫(yī)療產(chǎn)品缺陷的認(rèn)定、損害的鑒定以及缺陷與損害之間存在因果關(guān)系的證明責(zé)任歸屬問題。第四章就醫(yī)療產(chǎn)品侵權(quán)責(zé)任自身的特點(diǎn),從責(zé)任主體、一般規(guī)則和抗辯事由方面與一般產(chǎn)品損害責(zé)任及一般醫(yī)療損害責(zé)任進(jìn)行比較,明確醫(yī)療機(jī)構(gòu)在醫(yī)療產(chǎn)品侵權(quán)責(zé)任中不能等同于銷售者,銷售者應(yīng)該承擔(dān)相應(yīng)責(zé)任。第五章在前文的分析研究的基礎(chǔ)上,從完善責(zé)任主體、證據(jù)規(guī)則以及建立公平責(zé)任機(jī)制方面對(duì)我國(guó)醫(yī)療產(chǎn)品侵權(quán)責(zé)任相關(guān)制度的完善提出一些設(shè)想和建議。
[Abstract]:In recent years, medical product damage disputes continue to increase, doctor-patient relations tend to be tense, become one of the hot issues of social concern. With the increasing of public legal consciousness and right consciousness, it is of practical significance to study the right relief after medical injury. In the judicial practice of our country, there are different ways to deal with the disputes caused by medical activities in different periods. Before the tort liability law comes into effect, after the medical injury dispute occurs, the patient should first identify the medical malpractice and determine the different treatment methods according to the appraisal result. After the implementation of the Tort liability Law, major changes have taken place in the handling of medical injury disputes. The Tort liability Law has made specific provisions on medical damage liability, and medical malpractice identification is not a necessary procedure for medical injury disputes. May directly request the relevant responsible person to bear the damage compensation liability. Article 59 of the tort liability law of our country makes a special provision on the tort liability of medical products. The tort liability of medical products involves general medical tort liability and product liability, and the main body involved is not only patients and medical institutions. It also includes third parties related to medical products. In practice, the identification of the tort liability of medical products, the application of the principle of imputation and the determination of responsibility are faced with many difficulties, such as how to distinguish the tort liability of medical products from the general liability for medical damage; In the tort liability of medical products, whether the medical institution is responsible as a seller or not, how to distribute the burden of proof that there is a causal relationship between the product defect and the result of the damage, and so on. Through the analysis of cases and judicial decisions in practice, this paper puts forward some related problems, studies the principle of liability for tort liability of medical products and its constitutive requirements, and analyzes and compares the liability for injury of general products and the liability for general medical damage. In order to perfect the legal system of tort liability of medical products and protect the legitimate rights and interests of the parties, this paper discusses the shortcomings of the existing laws of our country and puts forward some relevant suggestions. This paper is divided into five chapters: the first chapter takes a case of medical damage liability dispute in practice as an example, analyzes the focus of the dispute in practice, the first instance of the court in this case, the second instance judgment, the application of the law. The result of judgment and the differences between them are studied and considered, and the related problems are raised from the aspects of the legal system and judicial practice of tort liability of medical products in China. The second chapter introduces the general theory of tort liability of medical products, introduces the related legal systems of other major countries in the world, and analyzes several viewpoints in academic circles, including fault liability theory, no-fault liability theory and comprehensive theory. This paper analyzes the principle of tort liability of medical products in China and points out its shortcomings. The third chapter makes a careful analysis of the components of the tort liability of medical products, combining with the cases cited in this paper, focuses on the identification of medical product defects in practice. The identification of damage and the attribution of burden of proof between defect and damage. In the fourth chapter, the author compares the characteristics of tort liability of medical products with that of general product damage liability and general medical damage liability from the aspects of liability subject, general rules and defenses. It is clear that medical institutions should not be equal to the seller in the tort liability of medical products, and the seller should bear the corresponding responsibility. The fifth chapter on the basis of the previous analysis and research, from the aspects of perfecting the subject of responsibility, the rules of evidence and the establishment of fair liability mechanism, put forward some ideas and suggestions on the improvement of the relevant system of tort liability of medical products in China.
【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】：2015
【分類號(hào)】：D923

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前5條

1 陳特;;醫(yī)療產(chǎn)品致?lián)p害 如何歸責(zé)?[J];中國(guó)社區(qū)醫(yī)師;2011年25期

2 王竹;;論醫(yī)療產(chǎn)品責(zé)任規(guī)則及其準(zhǔn)用——以《中華人民共和國(guó)侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》第59條為中心[J];法商研究;2013年03期

3 向歆;劉蔚;方強(qiáng);;醫(yī)療產(chǎn)品損害責(zé)任歸責(zé)原則及相關(guān)問題芻議[J];中國(guó)衛(wèi)生事業(yè)管理;2012年03期

4 宮主;;治理虛假醫(yī)療廣告刻不容緩[J];吉林人大;2013年11期

5 ;[J];;年期

相關(guān)會(huì)議論文 前3條

1 奚廷斐;馮曉明;;組織工程醫(yī)療產(chǎn)品的安全性評(píng)價(jià)和標(biāo)準(zhǔn)化研究[A];新世紀(jì) 新機(jī)遇 新挑戰(zhàn)——知識(shí)創(chuàng)新和高新技術(shù)產(chǎn)業(yè)發(fā)展（上冊(cè)）[C];2001年

2 包家立;;一種新型的醫(yī)療產(chǎn)品:結(jié)合產(chǎn)品[A];中國(guó)儀器儀表學(xué)會(huì)2005年學(xué)術(shù)年會(huì)醫(yī)療儀器學(xué)術(shù)會(huì)議暨中國(guó)儀器儀表學(xué)會(huì)醫(yī)療儀器分會(huì)第三屆第二次理事會(huì)論文匯編[C];2005年

3 ;上海普延醫(yī)療設(shè)備有限公司[A];2011年浙江省眼科學(xué)術(shù)會(huì)議論文集[C];2011年

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前10條

1 媒體人 龍敏飛;“療效”才是醫(yī)療產(chǎn)品最好的廣告[N];企業(yè)家日?qǐng)?bào);2013年

2 井惠群 陳友強(qiáng);大連破獲假冒歐姆龍醫(yī)療產(chǎn)品大案[N];中國(guó)工商報(bào);2013年

3 迅杰;移動(dòng)醫(yī)療產(chǎn)品“智能輻射”路徑[N];醫(yī)藥經(jīng)濟(jì)報(bào);2014年

4 陸志明;醫(yī)療產(chǎn)品限價(jià)正得其所[N];中國(guó)經(jīng)營(yíng)報(bào);2006年

5 崔昕;英邁視達(dá)康公司在華推廣網(wǎng)絡(luò)醫(yī)療產(chǎn)品信息平臺(tái)[N];中國(guó)醫(yī)藥報(bào);2008年

6 本報(bào)記者 徐風(fēng);條碼串起食品醫(yī)療產(chǎn)品質(zhì)量安全線[N];中國(guó)質(zhì)量報(bào);2009年

7 中國(guó)人民大學(xué)法學(xué)院 寧子昂;醫(yī)療產(chǎn)品損害賠償責(zé)任怎樣分擔(dān)才合理[N];檢察日?qǐng)?bào);2010年

8 印高樂;臺(tái)灣上半年醫(yī)療產(chǎn)品出口減少[N];醫(yī)藥經(jīng)濟(jì)報(bào);2004年

9 童一;歐洲人用醫(yī)療產(chǎn)品委員會(huì)向歐盟委員會(huì)推薦批準(zhǔn)數(shù)種藥物[N];中國(guó)醫(yī)藥報(bào);2010年

10 謝宏偉邋程偉;氣體醫(yī)療產(chǎn)品處監(jiān)管盲區(qū)[N];江淮時(shí)報(bào);2008年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前8條

1 陳輝;論醫(yī)療產(chǎn)品侵權(quán)責(zé)任[D];華東政法大學(xué);2015年

2 邢晶晶;缺陷醫(yī)療產(chǎn)品侵權(quán)責(zé)任研究[D];首都經(jīng)濟(jì)貿(mào)易大學(xué);2013年

3 張丹;家用醫(yī)療產(chǎn)品的情境體驗(yàn)設(shè)計(jì)研究[D];山東大學(xué);2012年

4 張硯;缺陷醫(yī)療產(chǎn)品損害責(zé)任認(rèn)定[D];沈陽師范大學(xué);2013年

5 王猛;老年人應(yīng)急性家用醫(yī)療產(chǎn)品的設(shè)計(jì)研究[D];江南大學(xué);2011年

6 楊曉林;家用醫(yī)療產(chǎn)品的人性化設(shè)計(jì)[D];齊魯工業(yè)大學(xué);2013年

7 程躍華;醫(yī)療產(chǎn)品責(zé)任法律制度研究[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2007年

8 袁品均;監(jiān)測(cè)類醫(yī)療產(chǎn)品界面設(shè)計(jì)理論及應(yīng)用的研究[D];四川大學(xué);2006年

，

本文編號(hào)：2280107