本文選題：獻血　切入點：道德義務(wù)　出處：《吉林大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：理論界對于現(xiàn)行無償獻血制度的研究多集中于醫(yī)學(xué)或者公共管理領(lǐng)域,相對而言法學(xué)領(lǐng)域?qū)υ搯栴}的研究并不普遍,尤其是對于獻血法律屬性的研究更是匱乏。有關(guān)研究成果大多認(rèn)為獻血是一項義務(wù),少有將其視為一項權(quán)利的觀點。本文試圖從倫理學(xué)角度以及法理學(xué)角度來論證獻血是一項道德權(quán)利以及法律權(quán)利。獻血制度經(jīng)歷了從有償獻血到義務(wù)獻血,從義務(wù)獻血到無償獻血的發(fā)展歷程。其歷史變遷蘊含著價值觀念的更迭,同時也反映出我國獻血法律屬性的轉(zhuǎn)變:從“義務(wù)”走向“權(quán)利”。獻血法律屬性的認(rèn)定在理論界并未達成廣泛共識,尤其是在《獻血法》頒布施行以后,部分法律文件乃至有關(guān)單位和部門仍然將獻血視為一項義務(wù)。究其原因是價值觀念尚未轉(zhuǎn)變,其并未真正領(lǐng)會《獻血法》立法精神。因此有必要對獻血法律屬性進行深入探討,以此保障我國無償獻血制度的順利實行。實踐中存在的獻血“攤派行為”實際上是一種將獻血視為法律義務(wù)的行為,理論界對于獻血法律屬性的探討多認(rèn)為其應(yīng)當(dāng)是一項道德義務(wù),而非法律義務(wù)。從現(xiàn)有諸多法律規(guī)定來看,相關(guān)法律文件中“自愿獻血”和“鼓勵獻血”等并不具備義務(wù)規(guī)范特征的詞匯的使用表明了獻血行為在我國并未被確認(rèn)為是一項法律義務(wù)。法律義務(wù)的設(shè)定多反映某一行為在倫理道德上的主張,獻血這一處分自己身體以救助他人的行為在道德上應(yīng)當(dāng)是一種利他行為或者超道德行為,與不得傷害他人的道德義務(wù)區(qū)別甚遠。不具備道德強制性的行為被法律“強行規(guī)定”為一項法律義務(wù)的立法舉動顯然缺乏法律合理性,因此獻血從根本上便不具有上升為法律義務(wù)的可能性。獻血在倫理道德層面上并不屬于道德義務(wù),而是一種利他行為或超道德行為,該行為實質(zhì)上屬于愿望道德層面,是一種美德。而與道德義務(wù)相對應(yīng)的道德權(quán)利則包括了不受他人侵害的權(quán)利以及不受他人干涉的利他行為,愿望道德層面的行為是道德權(quán)利的應(yīng)有之意,因此獻血應(yīng)當(dāng)是一項道德權(quán)利。法律權(quán)利的確認(rèn)多反映道德層面的利益訴求,獻血作為一項道德權(quán)利,其具備上升為法律權(quán)利的可行性。我國現(xiàn)行《獻血法》亦使用授權(quán)性規(guī)范來規(guī)制獻血這一行為,因此獻血實際上應(yīng)當(dāng)是一項法律權(quán)利。明確獻血的權(quán)利屬性之后,為了保障獻血權(quán)利的實現(xiàn),盡快解決由來已久的“血荒”問題,促進我國獻血事業(yè)的健康發(fā)展,便需要設(shè)置和完善與之相對應(yīng)的配套制度。權(quán)利不能被強制,否則便有失其本意。義務(wù)多以配置責(zé)任后果的方式促進其履行,而權(quán)利的實現(xiàn)則更多地需要依靠相應(yīng)的激勵措施,尤其是為了促進權(quán)利的主動行使。有權(quán)利就有救濟,沒有無救濟的權(quán)利,促進權(quán)利的實現(xiàn)有必要設(shè)計與之相關(guān)的各項救濟制度。制度在實踐中不可避免地會出現(xiàn)一些變形,這就需要輔之以相應(yīng)的監(jiān)督機制以保障制度的有效落實。因此,保障獻血權(quán)利實現(xiàn)的制度設(shè)計應(yīng)當(dāng)包括但不限于獻血權(quán)利實現(xiàn)的激勵制度、救濟制度和監(jiān)督機制。
[Abstract]:The theory for the study of the current system of blood donation are more concentrated in medicine or in the field of public administration, the relative research on this problem is not common law field, especially for the study of blood donation legal attribute is scarce. The research results are considered a blood donation, few views it as a right this paper attempts to prove. It is a moral rights and legal rights from the perspective of ethics and jurisprudence to donate blood. Blood donation system from paid donors to blood donation, blood donation from development to blood donation. Its history contains the values of the change, but also reflects the transformation of China's blood donation law attribute: from the "obligation" to "right". That donation legal attribute has not reached a broad consensus in the theory circle, especially in the "blood donation law > after promulgation, part of law The law of documents and relevant units and departments will continue to donate blood as a duty. The reason is that values are not changed, it did not really understand the "blood donation law > the spirit of legislation. So it is necessary to conduct in-depth study of blood donation legal attribute, in order to ensure the smooth implementation of our system of blood donation. Blood donation" exists in practice apportionments "is actually a blood donation will act as a legal obligation, the theory should be a moral obligation to donate blood for the legal property that, rather than a legal obligation. From the existing legal provisions, the relevant legal documents in the" voluntary blood donation "and" encourage blood donation "does not have the obligation specification features the use of vocabulary that blood donation behavior in China has not been confirmed as a legal obligation. The legal obligation set reflect stands for a behavior in ethics, Xian The blood to dispose of his body to save others in moral behavior should be a kind of altruistic behavior or moral behavior, and moral obligation not to harm others from far. Do not have the moral compulsion by law "legislation act imposed" as a legal obligation of the apparent lack of legal rationality, so the blood donation from there is no possibility of legal obligation has increased. The blood on the level of ethics and morals is not a moral obligation, but a kind of altruistic behavior or moral behavior, the behavior essentially belongs to the desire of the moral level, is a kind of virtue and moral obligations. And moral rights include no violation of others right, without the interference of others desire altruistic behavior, moral behavior is moral rights should have meaning, so the blood donation should be a moral right of legal rights is. Can more reflect the interests and moral level, blood donation as a moral right, which has become the legal right. The feasibility of China's current "blood donation law > also use authorized norms to regulate the behavior of blood donation, blood donation should therefore actually is a legal right. Right after the clear blood donation, in order to achieve protect the blood donation rights, as soon as possible to solve the long-standing" shortage "problem, and promote the healthy development of the cause of China's blood donation, they need to set up and improve the supporting system and the corresponding rights cannot be enforced, otherwise it will lose its meaning. The obligation to promote the allocation of responsibility for the consequences of their performance, and rights the more need to rely on the corresponding incentive measures, especially in order to promote the exercise of rights. Rights of relief, no right without relief, promote the rights necessary to design and phase Close the relief system. In practice, inevitably there will be some deformation, which need to be complemented by effective implementation of the corresponding supervisory mechanism to protect the system. Therefore, the realization of the rights guarantee blood donation system design shall include but not limited to the blood donation rights incentive system, supervision mechanism and relief system.

【學(xué)位授予單位】：吉林大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：D922.16

【相似文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 劉金凌;;道德義務(wù)新論[J];理論界;2006年04期

2 吳宏;;培養(yǎng)義務(wù)觀念 履行道德義務(wù)[J];赤峰學(xué)院學(xué)報(漢文哲學(xué)社會科學(xué)版);2007年01期

3 周藝;;淺析道德義務(wù)法律化的可行性[J];法制與社會;2009年16期

4 王s，

本文編號：1556360