【摘要】：目前醫(yī)療糾紛已經(jīng)成為社會上廣泛關(guān)注的焦點(diǎn),醫(yī)患矛盾不斷加深,而醫(yī)患之間權(quán)利義務(wù)處于不平衡的狀態(tài),過分保護(hù)患方的權(quán)利,加之患方濫用自身權(quán)利現(xiàn)象的增加導(dǎo)致醫(yī)方權(quán)利不斷受到侵犯,醫(yī)患關(guān)系緊張本質(zhì)上將不利于患方權(quán)益的保障。實(shí)踐中,在緊急情況下因過分保護(hù)患方的知情同意權(quán),而使醫(yī)方束手無策進(jìn)退兩難的情況時(shí)常發(fā)生,醫(yī)方擅自采取醫(yī)療措施則會侵犯患方的知情同意權(quán),醫(yī)方尊重患方的知情同意權(quán),則會導(dǎo)致患者的生命健康權(quán)得不到保障,依然會帶來法律上以及輿論上的懲罰。那么,在緊急情況下,則需要對患方的知情同意權(quán)進(jìn)行限制,賦予醫(yī)方緊急醫(yī)療措施權(quán),對抗患方的知情同意權(quán),不再強(qiáng)制醫(yī)方履行其相關(guān)義務(wù),而是履行其緊急救治義務(wù),才能最終保障患者的生命健康權(quán)。本文第2章對醫(yī)方緊急醫(yī)療措施權(quán)進(jìn)行了詳細(xì)的界定,緊急醫(yī)療措施權(quán)是指在緊急情況下,得不到患方知情同意,為保障患者的利益,醫(yī)方可采取緊急醫(yī)療措施的權(quán)利。緊急醫(yī)療措施權(quán)具有緊急性、專業(yè)性、高風(fēng)險(xiǎn)性以及以患者利益為根本出發(fā)點(diǎn)等特征。第3章對緊急醫(yī)療措施權(quán)相關(guān)法律關(guān)系進(jìn)行分析,分別介紹了患方知情同意權(quán)與患者生命健康權(quán)之關(guān)系、醫(yī)方緊急醫(yī)療措施權(quán)與患方知情同意權(quán)之關(guān)系以及醫(yī)方緊急醫(yī)療措施權(quán)與醫(yī)方緊急救治義務(wù)之關(guān)系,各權(quán)利義務(wù)關(guān)系密不可分。第4章指出我國《侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》第56條賦予了醫(yī)方緊急醫(yī)療措施權(quán),但是其法律規(guī)定存在明顯的漏洞,不能解決醫(yī)方在實(shí)踐中行使緊急醫(yī)療措施權(quán)時(shí)面臨的復(fù)雜情況。首先,我國醫(yī)方緊急醫(yī)療措施權(quán)行使的前提及條件設(shè)置不合理;其次,我國緊急醫(yī)療措施權(quán)行使的審批制度設(shè)置不合理;再次,缺少對醫(yī)方緊急醫(yī)療措施權(quán)行使的權(quán)利保障機(jī)制和權(quán)利監(jiān)督機(jī)制。我國醫(yī)方緊急醫(yī)療措施權(quán)的行使不僅存在法律規(guī)定的漏洞,在現(xiàn)實(shí)行使中也陷入極大的困境,在醫(yī)患信任跌破底線的背景下,因醫(yī)方緊急醫(yī)療措施權(quán)的行使是將患方自主決定權(quán)過渡到醫(yī)方手中,對抗患方的知情同意權(quán),加上醫(yī)學(xué)的復(fù)雜性不確定性,很容易達(dá)不到預(yù)期的醫(yī)療效果而與患方陷入醫(yī)療糾紛,醫(yī)方承擔(dān)較高的法律和經(jīng)濟(jì)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。針對我國醫(yī)方緊急醫(yī)療措施權(quán)行使的法律漏洞和現(xiàn)實(shí)困境,本文在第5章提出了以下幾點(diǎn)建議:一、完善緊急醫(yī)療措施權(quán)行使前提的規(guī)定;二、建立緊急醫(yī)療措施審查委員會;三、完善醫(yī)方緊急醫(yī)療措施權(quán)行使的保障機(jī)制;四、提高醫(yī)方職業(yè)道德及執(zhí)業(yè)水平;五、建立醫(yī)療信用評價(jià)制度;六、規(guī)范媒體與自媒體的行為。希望通過以上幾點(diǎn)建議能夠保障醫(yī)方緊急醫(yī)療措施權(quán)的行使,從而真正維護(hù)患者的權(quán)益。
[Abstract]:At present, medical disputes have become the focus of widespread concern in the society. The contradictions between doctors and patients are deepening, while the rights and obligations between doctors and patients are in an unbalanced state, and the rights of patients are over-protected. In addition, the increase of abuse of the rights of patients leads to the violation of the rights of the doctors, so the tension between doctors and patients will in essence be detrimental to the protection of the rights and interests of the patients. In practice, the dilemma often occurs because of the excessive protection of the informed consent right of the patient in an emergency, and the medical party's right to informed consent will be violated if the medical party takes medical measures without authorization. If the patient's right to informed consent is respected, the patient's right to life and health will not be guaranteed, and will still bring legal and public punishment. Well, in emergency situations, it is necessary to restrict the right of informed consent of the patient, endow the doctor with the right to emergency medical measures, counteract the right of informed consent of the patient, and no longer compel the medical party to perform its relevant obligations, but to fulfil its obligation of emergency treatment. Only then can the patient's right to life and health be protected. The second chapter defines the right of medical emergency medical measures in detail. The right of emergency medical measures refers to the right to take emergency medical measures to protect the interests of patients without the informed consent of the patients. The right to emergency medical measures is characterized by urgency, professionalism, high risk and taking patient's interests as the basic starting point. Chapter 3 analyzes the relationship between the right to informed consent and the right to life and health of patients. The relationship between the right of emergency medical measures and the right of informed consent of the patient and the right of emergency medical measures and the obligation of emergency treatment are closely related to the rights and obligations. Chapter 4 points out that Article 56 of our country's Tort liability Law gives the doctors the right to emergency medical measures, but there are obvious loopholes in its legal provisions, which cannot solve the complex situation that the doctors face when they exercise the right of emergency medical measures in practice. First, the premise and conditions of the exercise of the right of emergency medical measures in our country are unreasonable; secondly, the system of examination and approval of the exercise of the right of emergency medical measures in our country is unreasonable. Thirdly, it lacks the right guarantee mechanism and the right supervision mechanism to exercise the right of medical emergency medical measures. The exercise of the right of medical emergency medical measures in our country not only has the loopholes stipulated by law, but also falls into a great dilemma in the actual exercise. Under the background that the trust between doctors and patients falls below the bottom line, Because the exercise of the right to emergency medical measures is to transfer the patient's autonomy to the patient's hands, to counter the patient's right of informed consent, plus the complexity of medical uncertainty, It is easy to fail to achieve the desired medical effects and fall into medical disputes with the patient, who bear higher legal and economic risks. In view of the legal loopholes and practical difficulties in the exercise of the right to emergency medical measures in our country, this paper puts forward the following suggestions in Chapter 5: first, to perfect the provisions on the premise of the exercise of the right to emergency medical measures; second, to establish a review committee on emergency medical measures; Third, perfect the safeguard mechanism of the right of medical emergency medical measures; fourth, improve the professional ethics and practice level; fifth, establish the medical credit evaluation system; sixthly, standardize the behavior of the media and the self-media. It is hoped that the above suggestions can guarantee the exercise of the right of medical emergency medical measures, so as to protect the rights and interests of patients.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：上海師范大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：D923

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 郇春松;;試論醫(yī)生的特殊干涉權(quán)[J];醫(yī)學(xué)與法學(xué);2015年02期

2 趙楠;王彩霞;;現(xiàn)代醫(yī)生醫(yī)療干涉權(quán)弱化的倫理反思[J];中國醫(yī)學(xué)倫理學(xué);2015年02期

3 李靜;;完善《侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》中緊急醫(yī)療措施權(quán)規(guī)定的建議[J];黑龍江生態(tài)工程職業(yè)學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2015年01期

4 梅春英;;患者自主決定權(quán)與醫(yī)療干涉權(quán)的沖突與解決[J];遼寧醫(yī)學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào)(社會科學(xué)版);2014年02期

5 蘇玉菊;;患者權(quán)利沖突的法倫理思考[J];醫(yī)學(xué)與哲學(xué)(A);2014年04期

6 劉鑫;;醫(yī)師特殊干預(yù)權(quán)的保障與完善:以“好撒瑪利亞人法”為視角[J];醫(yī)學(xué)與法學(xué);2014年01期

7 張維帥;尹梅;;論醫(yī)療干涉權(quán)與知情同意權(quán)的沖突[J];中國醫(yī)學(xué)倫理學(xué);2013年05期

8 陳永豐;王軍芬;;醫(yī)生干涉權(quán)及其延伸權(quán)與風(fēng)險(xiǎn)規(guī)避[J];中國醫(yī)學(xué)倫理學(xué);2013年03期

9 張維帥;尹梅;;醫(yī)療干涉權(quán)的法律探析[J];學(xué)術(shù)交流;2013年04期

10 林琳;;緊急專斷治療相關(guān)主體的權(quán)利義務(wù)研究[J];醫(yī)學(xué)與哲學(xué)(A);2013年01期

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 鐘曉婷;論我國醫(yī)療機(jī)構(gòu)緊急救治權(quán)的行使[D];暨南大學(xué);2014年

2 林穎怡;論患者知情同意權(quán)的民法保護(hù)[D];華南理工大學(xué);2014年

3 陳霖;對患者知情同意權(quán)行使的法律問題研究[D];廈門大學(xué);2014年

4 王茜;論患方知情同意權(quán)與醫(yī)方干涉權(quán)的沖突與協(xié)調(diào)[D];中國海洋大學(xué);2012年

5 楊瀾滴;論醫(yī)方的緊急救治權(quán)[D];西南財(cái)經(jīng)大學(xué);2012年

6 劉媛媛;緊急醫(yī)療措施權(quán)研究[D];華中師范大學(xué);2012年

7 蔣莉;論醫(yī)生診療決定權(quán)和患者自主決定權(quán)的沖突[D];南京大學(xué);2012年

8 韓旭;緊急醫(yī)療措施制度研究[D];西南政法大學(xué);2012年

9 孟雅娜;醫(yī)療干涉權(quán)若干問題研究[D];江蘇大學(xué);2008年

10 陳姝;醫(yī)患關(guān)系中病人自主權(quán)的民法保護(hù)[D];西南政法大學(xué);2007年

，

本文編號：2356048