發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-11-04 20:55

【摘要】：在現(xiàn)代化醫(yī)療領(lǐng)域,植入類醫(yī)療器械被大規(guī)模使用,該類器械一旦存在缺陷,將不可避免的對(duì)人身體健康造成侵害。但是在法律實(shí)務(wù)中,當(dāng)下實(shí)體法僅將醫(yī)療產(chǎn)品侵權(quán)以不真正連帶責(zé)任加以規(guī)制,并未對(duì)植入類醫(yī)療器械侵權(quán)予以明確規(guī)定,難以有效滿足各方利益訴求。以植入類醫(yī)療器械致害作為研究對(duì)象,從醫(yī)療機(jī)構(gòu)的責(zé)任承擔(dān)為出發(fā)點(diǎn),以致害原因?yàn)闃?biāo)準(zhǔn),將植入類醫(yī)療器械致害劃分為單純醫(yī)療器械缺陷致害、單純使用過(guò)失致害以及非單純性致害三類,并就其責(zé)任形態(tài)、使用規(guī)則等問(wèn)題進(jìn)行明晰。其次,就植入類醫(yī)療器械侵權(quán)責(zé)任構(gòu)成要件進(jìn)行系統(tǒng)分析,在缺陷認(rèn)定上,就其過(guò)度依賴強(qiáng)制性標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的情況和警示缺陷的不同予以說(shuō)明;在損害方面,將機(jī)會(huì)喪失侵權(quán)損害納入損害賠償范圍,而且就實(shí)踐中的相關(guān)損害認(rèn)定做法予以評(píng)析;在因果關(guān)系上,就因果關(guān)系構(gòu)成、舉證、以及認(rèn)定方面的特殊性進(jìn)行了詳細(xì)闡述,并就醫(yī)療鑒定在因果關(guān)系認(rèn)定上的作用作出評(píng)述。最后,探討植入類醫(yī)療器械工藝水平抗辯、博學(xué)的中間人抗辯、受害人同意三種特殊抗辯事由,就其適用的合理性予以說(shuō)明,以期達(dá)到利益平衡,各責(zé)任主體更加公平合理的分配責(zé)任。
[Abstract]:In the modern medical field, implantable medical devices are used on a large scale. Once there are defects in these devices, they will inevitably cause harm to human health. However, in the legal practice, the current substantive law only regulates the infringement of medical products with unreal joint and several liability, and does not clearly stipulate the tort of implanted medical devices, so it is difficult to effectively meet the interests of all parties. Taking implantable medical devices as the research object, taking the responsibility of medical institutions as the starting point and the cause of medical devices as the standard, the harm of implantable medical devices is divided into simple medical device defects. There are only three types of damage caused by negligence and non-simple damage, and the responsibility form and usage rules are clarified. Secondly, the author makes a systematic analysis on the constitutive requirements of tort liability for implantable medical devices, and explains the situation of excessive reliance on mandatory standards and the difference of warning defects in the identification of defects. In the aspect of damage, the loss of opportunity tort damage should be included in the scope of damage compensation, and the practice of identifying the damage in practice should be evaluated. In the aspect of causality, the particularity of causality constitution, proof and cognizance is expounded in detail, and the function of medical appraisal in causation identification is commented. Finally, the author discusses the technological level defense of implantable medical device, the erudite middleman defense, the victim agrees to three special defense reasons, and explains the rationality of its application, in order to achieve the balance of interests. Each responsibility main body distributes the responsibility more fairly and reasonably.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：煙臺(tái)大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：D923

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 賀琛;;我國(guó)產(chǎn)品責(zé)任法中發(fā)展風(fēng)險(xiǎn)抗辯制度的反思與重構(gòu)[J];法律科學(xué)(西北政法大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào));2016年03期

2 焦艷玲;;論產(chǎn)品售后義務(wù)——兼評(píng)《侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》第46條[J];重慶大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2016年02期

3 周友軍;;論侵權(quán)法上的產(chǎn)品跟蹤觀察義務(wù)[J];法律科學(xué)(西北政法大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào));2014年04期

4 郭明瑞;;侵權(quán)責(zé)任構(gòu)成中因果關(guān)系理論的反思[J];甘肅政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2013年04期

5 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

6 楊立新;;醫(yī)療產(chǎn)品損害責(zé)任三論[J];河北法學(xué);2012年06期

7 張新寶;任鴻雁;;我國(guó)產(chǎn)品責(zé)任制度:守成與創(chuàng)新[J];北方法學(xué);2012年03期

8 董春華;;缺陷醫(yī)療器械侵權(quán)責(zé)任性質(zhì)及其構(gòu)成要件[J];南通大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2012年02期

9 葉正明;;美國(guó)藥品侵權(quán)責(zé)任制度的演變及其發(fā)展趨勢(shì)[J];湖南行政學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2011年05期

10 張?jiān)?;突破與超越:《侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》產(chǎn)品后續(xù)觀察義務(wù)之解讀[J];現(xiàn)代法學(xué);2011年05期

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前2條

1 文峰;;完善安全措施 堵塞安全漏洞[N];中國(guó)醫(yī)藥報(bào);2010年

2 梁慧星;;醫(yī)療損害賠償案件的法律適用問(wèn)題（下）[N];人民法院報(bào);2005年

，

本文編號(hào)：2311109