中文摘要
由于本文關(guān)注的主要是實踐中關(guān)于輸血感染病毒而產(chǎn)生的諸多較為棘手的問題，并試圖為這些問題的解決提供體系化的解決方案，因此，本文的論述將從實踐中所遇到的問題展開，層層深入，剖析其法理，并結(jié)合社會政策、法經(jīng)濟學(xué)、醫(yī)學(xué)技術(shù)和倫理方面等方面，以期建立起較為完備的關(guān)于輸血感染病毒的責(zé)任體系。
遵循上述思路，本文首先在引言中介紹了實踐中因輸血行為感染病毒而產(chǎn)生的種種難以解決的問題，因為輸血是嚴(yán)重疾病最直接有效的救治手段(尤其是很多的血液疾病)，醫(yī)院臨床上需要的血液愈來愈多。可是，輸血具有較大的危險性。因此，本身輸血行為就存在無法避免的危險因素，如病人對所輸血液的排異情況和因輸血所引起的并發(fā)癥等。另外，輸血的危險性還在于輸血極易造成病人被感染嚴(yán)重疾病。因此如何去預(yù)防的關(guān)鍵就在于，最初輸入病人體內(nèi)的血液，一定要通過采集血液、檢驗、分離、加工、包裝等等使用前的檢驗、使用時應(yīng)當(dāng)認真審核。此程序中的所有環(huán)節(jié)一個都不允許出現(xiàn)紕漏，以及受醫(yī)學(xué)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的限制(如很多疾病尚處于窗口期無法被醫(yī)療試劑檢測出來)，這些都可能造成血液被感染嚴(yán)重的病菌，這種血液一旦輸入進病人身體就立刻會被感染很嚴(yán)重的疾病，甚至無法被治愈。并以此為切入點，提出本文擬研究的問題、國內(nèi)外關(guān)于此問題的研究現(xiàn)狀以及本文的研究方法和寫作框架。由于輸血受到傳染的疾病，比如甲、乙、丙肝、梅毒、艾滋病等等，通常都存在嚴(yán)重威脅病人的健康生命且無法完全被治愈有的也會涉及到生命安全并存在傳染性的特征。病人在醫(yī)院輸血的過程中，原本只是為了治療自身所患的疾病，如果輸血被感染，就一定會造成受害者的憤怒情緒繼而無窮無盡追究醫(yī)院的責(zé)任以及索賠紛爭。這類糾紛會牽涉到醫(yī)學(xué)、法學(xué)等多層面的問題。人們對這些案件的定性為民事糾紛、打官司、責(zé)任方、歸責(zé)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)、索賠金額等，缺乏一致的共識，學(xué)術(shù)界對血液的法律認識(能否作為產(chǎn)品)、供血的有償無償?shù)纫蛩匾踩狈疽恢碌恼撟C。筆者對其作出具體的討論，有待今后發(fā)生輸血感染案件時，病人申訴有門、法院斷之有據(jù)。
在此基礎(chǔ)上，本文首先運用比較法的方法，在這一章首先分析了血液與血液制品區(qū)分的法律意義，為了使因輸血受到感染的患者可以盡早的獲得治療和救濟，血站、醫(yī)療單位可以繼續(xù)保持其自身的日常工作秩序，維護社會的穩(wěn)定，一定要詳細研究分配輸血造成感染的法律追究，實現(xiàn)公正、公平以及公開。而法律分配的責(zé)任前提條件是清晰認定血液制劑和血液的法律定義，即血液制劑和血液能否作為“產(chǎn)品”。這涉及到適用法律的選擇標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。若是血液制劑與血液符合“產(chǎn)品”屬性，則血站變成了“產(chǎn)品”的“經(jīng)營者”，醫(yī)療單位變成了“產(chǎn)品”的“銷售者”，根據(jù)我國的法律，可應(yīng)用《消費者權(quán)益保護法》以及《中華人民共和國產(chǎn)品質(zhì)量法》等相關(guān)產(chǎn)品責(zé)任的規(guī)定。若是血液制品和血液不屬于“產(chǎn)品”，因輸血而造成病人感染疾病的定義為對病人健康生命權(quán)利的侵害，醫(yī)療單位與血站一定要承擔(dān)主要的侵權(quán)責(zé)任。在規(guī)定血液制品以及血液能否作為“產(chǎn)品”之前，我們需要先從它們之間的因果關(guān)系進行分析。首先應(yīng)予清楚的是血液制品與血液是不同的兩個觀念。血液包含了免疫球蛋白(液體成分)、血球(有形成分)和血清組成，文章中指用于臨床的成分血、全血和用于生產(chǎn)血液制品的血漿原料。血液制品屬于特殊的血漿蛋白制品。血液制品與血液在管理到生產(chǎn)再到經(jīng)營等許多方面具有諸多不同之處。接著討論了血液制品的法律屬性，從血液制品以及血液的不同觀點能夠看出，兩者之間是截然相反的觀念。法律所規(guī)定的血液制品，視為產(chǎn)品的范圍。大部分的國家像德國、日本、法國在其血液制品相關(guān)的法律規(guī)定中均同意血液制品作為“產(chǎn)品”的范疇，應(yīng)適用《產(chǎn)品責(zé)任法》和《制造物責(zé)任法》 。血液制品的屬性是產(chǎn)品，而血液的屬性是不是產(chǎn)品，筆者覺得，認定的重點在于血液是不是適合產(chǎn)品的組成要件，假設(shè)適合產(chǎn)品的組成要件，血液必然屬于產(chǎn)品的范疇：若是不適合產(chǎn)品的組成要件，那么血液應(yīng)當(dāng)不屬于產(chǎn)品范疇。筆者覺得，可以把產(chǎn)品的組合要件歸結(jié)為如下幾點：一為動產(chǎn)；二為利用制作與加工：三為存在流通性。是不是以盈利為手段(即用于銷售)，排除在產(chǎn)品的認定范圍之外。而經(jīng)過醫(yī)院和血站加工后的血液通過病人的等價交換變成了產(chǎn)品。然后介紹了輸血感染民事責(zé)任的現(xiàn)狀。這主要是因為這一問題的研究在一些域外立法、理論以及實踐中已經(jīng)進行得較為深入，探討此現(xiàn)狀，有助于對此問題進行深入的理解，也可以知曉輸血感染民事責(zé)任主要存在三種形式：產(chǎn)品責(zé)任、合同責(zé)任以及一般侵權(quán)責(zé)任。
第三章是將輸血感染所致民事責(zé)任的性質(zhì)認定為產(chǎn)品責(zé)任。遵循這樣的思路，本文首先分析了是否應(yīng)當(dāng)將輸血感染民事責(zé)任認定為一種產(chǎn)品責(zé)任，或者只應(yīng)當(dāng)將一部分輸血感染民事責(zé)任認定為一種產(chǎn)品責(zé)任，以及這種認定的原因。這里面可能涉及很多問題，例如血液是否構(gòu)成產(chǎn)品、損害是否因輸血造成（血液制品是否存在缺陷）、輸血行為產(chǎn)品責(zé)任主體是醫(yī)院還是血站等，還要探討如果輸血行為構(gòu)成產(chǎn)品責(zé)任法律后果，以及這種法律后果在實踐中是否是合適的。
本文在第四章接著探討是否應(yīng)當(dāng)將輸血感染民事責(zé)任認定為一種一般侵權(quán)責(zé)任，或者只應(yīng)當(dāng)將一部分輸血感染民事責(zé)任認定為一種一般侵權(quán)責(zé)任，以及這種認定的原因。這里面也涉及很多問題，首先是歸責(zé)原則的問題，學(xué)術(shù)間存在很多爭議，過錯責(zé)任，無過錯責(zé)任與公平責(zé)任標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。本文認為確定了血站應(yīng)對其提供的血液給患者造成的感染承擔(dān)侵權(quán)的損害賠償責(zé)任之后，我們通過比較再來看一看血站承擔(dān)責(zé)任的歸責(zé)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)是什么。血液是產(chǎn)品，血站承擔(dān)的是產(chǎn)品責(zé)任，而血站的產(chǎn)品責(zé)任又是產(chǎn)品的侵權(quán)責(zé)任。在侵權(quán)責(zé)任體系中，醫(yī)院在輸血感染中承擔(dān)的責(zé)任歸責(zé)原則應(yīng)當(dāng)是依無過錯致使感染輸血侵權(quán)責(zé)任的歸責(zé)認定。而筆者建議，病人承擔(dān)責(zé)任應(yīng)符合過錯責(zé)任的歸責(zé)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，即病人僅對因自已的過錯產(chǎn)生的損害結(jié)果負全部的責(zé)任；若是病人對損害結(jié)果不具有過錯，就不需要獨自承擔(dān)責(zé)任。至于病人的主觀過錯，筆者覺得，應(yīng)當(dāng)實施舉證責(zé)任倒置標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，病人不要求其證明其主觀上是不是具有過錯，由醫(yī)療單位和血站進行舉證證明病人的過錯。若是血站與醫(yī)療單位無法證明輸血感染是由于病人的主觀過錯所導(dǎo)致的，病人就不需要承擔(dān)責(zé)任。因為基于病人對專業(yè)的醫(yī)療知識非常欠缺和了解，所以當(dāng)病人身患疾病迫切等待救治的危險處境下，病人是不可能對其以前身體的全部癥狀清清楚楚的一一講述，當(dāng)中肯定會有遺漏之處。而醫(yī)師卻可以對病人的臨床癥狀有所了解及把握。刑法理論上，被告人以及犯罪嫌疑人不需要證明自己是否實施犯罪；公訴單位以及原告人一定要可以證明被告人或者犯罪嫌疑人是有罪的，若是其無法舉證對方有罪．則法院會判定被告人以及犯罪嫌疑人無罪。醫(yī)院單位、血站和病人，就等同于血液產(chǎn)品的“銷售者”、“生產(chǎn)者”以及“消費者”。因此，在血站、醫(yī)院和病人三者之間的法律義務(wù)是如何來區(qū)分的呢?根據(jù)《民法通則》的規(guī)定，一方對給他方所導(dǎo)致的損失有過錯的，必須由有過錯一方賠償受害方的全部損失：雙方對產(chǎn)生的損失都存在過錯的，則應(yīng)按其實際的過錯大小共同分攤損失。假設(shè)醫(yī)院單位、血站與病人三者中，有一方對輸血感染有過失，則由該方獨自承擔(dān)損害結(jié)果：若是三者中的兩者有過失，則應(yīng)由該二者按其過錯的認定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)共同分攤損失：若是三方都存在過錯，則由三方根據(jù)過錯的認定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)共同分攤損失；若是三方都沒有過失，應(yīng)基于公平范圍內(nèi)由三方承擔(dān)一部分的責(zé)任。筆者認為，盡管供血者、血頭對病人感染負有責(zé)任，可是，法律上不應(yīng)將其列入病人的追究范圍之中，也即，病人因輸血受到感染后，不能要求血頭以及獻血者承擔(dān)損害賠償責(zé)任。理由在于：首先，病人無法得知供血者的具體信息。獻血者賣血時都會在血站留下相關(guān)的記錄，但因各種原因，此等記錄有可能是捏造的甚至已被遺失，就算血站留有這些信息資料(血站應(yīng)當(dāng)把這些信息資料儲存10年)，病人也無法取得，更無法得知供血者的詳細情況。另外，獻血者通常都家境不濟，因生活貧窮所迫才去賣血。就算病人可以找到獻血者，獻血者也完全沒有經(jīng)濟實力獨自承擔(dān)賠償損害的責(zé)任。而且，我國目前大量的獻血昔都被血頭有組織的帶領(lǐng)著，想要尋找血頭，絕非易事。就算最終找到血頭，因其常常擁有一定的黑社會性質(zhì)，病人處于弱勢群體，根本無法與之理論。鑒于具有以上諸多困難，筆者建議應(yīng)把獻血者、血頭清除在法律賠償損害范圍之外。若是確因獻血者原因?qū)е虏∪烁腥荆赏贫ㄑ敬嬖谶^失，由血站對病人承擔(dān)責(zé)任。血站在采供血關(guān)系中，存在一系列責(zé)任，如為獻血者提供所有安全、便利與衛(wèi)生的設(shè)施：血站在采血自口一定要對供血者依照健康檢查標(biāo)準(zhǔn)實施身體檢查：并且血站應(yīng)當(dāng)審核供血者的信息，不允許接受冒名頂替者的血液，不允許采集過量的血液、以及頻繁采集血液；最后．血站還應(yīng)對采集到的血液實施嚴(yán)格的病菌抗體檢測，并使用嚴(yán)格的化學(xué)藥劑和檢測儀器對血液通過分離、加工與制作、儲存和包裝。血站如果采集了不合格的血液沒有及時檢測出來，造成病人感染，則表示血站存在過錯，則必須讓血站承擔(dān)全部的賠償損害責(zé)任。血頭、獻血者不需要對病人承擔(dān)損害賠償?shù)姆韶?zé)任。血站、醫(yī)院和衛(wèi)生行政主管部門應(yīng)當(dāng)提高對血液質(zhì)量的監(jiān)管機制，堅決不允許私自采購非法的血源，提高對血液的檢測標(biāo)準(zhǔn)和嚴(yán)格的法律規(guī)定；公安單位、檢察單位應(yīng)及時打擊違法供血活動的發(fā)生：若是由于供血者、血頭造成嚴(yán)重的血源性感染時，司法單位應(yīng)追究其有關(guān)的所有刑事責(zé)任。此外本文還探討了輸血感染病毒是否構(gòu)成損害、是否必須采取過錯責(zé)任作為歸責(zé)原則、以及因果關(guān)系的認定等問題，還需要探討，將輸血感染病毒責(zé)任認定為一般侵權(quán)責(zé)任的利弊，以及在實踐中是否合適。
同樣地，本文在第五章探討是否應(yīng)當(dāng)將輸血感染民事責(zé)任認定為一種違約責(zé)任，或者只應(yīng)當(dāng)將一部分輸血感染民事責(zé)任認定為一種違約責(zé)任，以及這種認定的原因。在患者向醫(yī)療機構(gòu)就診的過程當(dāng)中，雙方達成了一種默認的醫(yī)患合約。這份契約合同擁有以下諸多特征：實際上醫(yī)患之間是具有合法地位的契約形式。醫(yī)院要求患者在醫(yī)院掛號就診，便形成了契約；醫(yī)療部門根據(jù)患者的要求對其進行治療的做法，是一種雙方都默認的承諾，故此雙方相互公平的醫(yī)療服務(wù)合同關(guān)系的成立。此外，就彼此之間的合同來說，醫(yī)療機構(gòu)提供給患者可靠及安全的服務(wù)診療，輸血的行為應(yīng)當(dāng)屬于治療行為的一部分，而病人也因此給予了一定的經(jīng)濟付出。在病人接受輸血的過程之中，醫(yī)療部門如果給患者注射了被細菌感染或是受到污染的血液，從而造成病人輸血感染的后果，事實上是醫(yī)療機構(gòu)若是不能嚴(yán)格遵守合同規(guī)章，則必須承擔(dān)一切的違約后果。因而，輸血感染的矛盾可以通過《合同法》進行適當(dāng)?shù)恼{(diào)整。筆者覺得，醫(yī)療輸血行為是應(yīng)用于醫(yī)患之間的一種極為普遍的手段，因為這種舉措能夠在醫(yī)患之間有效促進醫(yī)療服務(wù)合同并無不同的態(tài)度，不過筆者并不主張患者因輸血感染損害賠償依據(jù)契約合同的性質(zhì)從而提起訴訟的請求，利用合同法調(diào)整兩者之間的關(guān)系會使患者與醫(yī)療機構(gòu)之間導(dǎo)致負面的影響。違約責(zé)任的賠償認定也極大的限制了患者損害請求權(quán)的展開。違約的賠償認定僅限于物質(zhì)的損害賠償范圍，也就是說，只有部分可以合理預(yù)見的損失財產(chǎn)才可以由違約方承擔(dān)相關(guān)的賠償。而由于醫(yī)務(wù)工作人員的過錯所致使的患者輸血感染或者在治療過程中的附加損害等，最主要的還是受害人的身體和精神上的巨大痛苦，不僅僅是物質(zhì)上的損失，這不可以構(gòu)成違約賠償?shù)臈l件，固然，如果以違約提起輸血感染訴訟，賠償責(zé)任一般認定難度較大。違約責(zé)任符合嚴(yán)格責(zé)任的規(guī)定，它的賠償范圍很小，即便是患者可以得到些許的賠償，但是卻無法補償受害者遭受的損失，這些無疑是對受害人極為不公平。
最后，本文在以上幾章討論的基礎(chǔ)上，綜合社會政策、法經(jīng)濟學(xué)考慮、醫(yī)學(xué)技術(shù)和倫理方面的考慮，為我國立法對于此問題的應(yīng)然選擇做出體系化構(gòu)建。現(xiàn)行立法方面因無過錯輸血感染疾病的案件的產(chǎn)生，，侵害了病人的身體健康，也提高了病人的經(jīng)濟壓力。由于缺乏具體統(tǒng)一的法律法規(guī)對該案件予以規(guī)范，導(dǎo)致各地的法院判決結(jié)果不盡相同，因此造成醫(yī)患之間的糾紛日益惡化。我國當(dāng)前針對解決無過錯輸血感染的法律盡管頒布了《侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》，但是該法律對輸血問題的規(guī)定并不充分，無法有效應(yīng)用于目前醫(yī)療損害賠償案件的審判標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。國家需要盡早出臺相應(yīng)的司法解釋，對于無過錯輸血感染侵權(quán)損害賠償適用無過錯責(zé)任原則予以具體的規(guī)定。同時，應(yīng)建立規(guī)范的輸血感染社會保障制度，完善有關(guān)的法律法規(guī)，使輸血的危險在社會范圍內(nèi)分擔(dān)，以有效保護病人、血站及醫(yī)療單位的合法權(quán)益。社會政策方面建議建立醫(yī)療責(zé)任保險制度、嚴(yán)格執(zhí)行采血供血全面檢測和用血安全制度、建立政府無過錯輸血感染補償基金、完善輸血醫(yī)療機構(gòu)相關(guān)管理制度、并進行醫(yī)學(xué)技術(shù)和倫理方面的考慮，比如預(yù)防輸血感染的技術(shù)措施、輸血感染后的救濟。更重要的是我國立法的應(yīng)然選擇，完善輸血感染相關(guān)立法，建立輸血及使用血液制品感染艾滋病病毒及病毒性肝炎患者的法律訴訟維權(quán)“綠色通道”、 將流行病學(xué)數(shù)據(jù)作為確定被告方責(zé)任的重要證據(jù)、國家的救助不能代替侵權(quán)人賠償責(zé)任、醫(yī)療費的賠付方式及標(biāo)準(zhǔn)應(yīng)以立法的形式做出規(guī)定、應(yīng)該就感染艾滋病患者是否應(yīng)獲得殘疾賠償金及死亡補償費應(yīng)作出規(guī)定等。還要建立輸血保險體系。
關(guān)鍵詞：輸血；感染；侵權(quán)；產(chǎn)品責(zé)任；違約；歸責(zé)

Abstract
Due to the focus of this article is mainly of blood transfusion infection and produce practice more difficult problems, and tries to provide the solution of these problems systematic solution, therefore, this article discusses the problem from practice, layer upon layer, analyzes its legal theory, and combining the method of social policy, economics, medical technology and ethical aspects and so on, in order to establish a relatively complete system of liability for blood transfusion infected with the virus.
Following the above ideas, this article first introduces the practice in the introduction of infection due to blood transfusion behavior and produce a variety of difficult to solve the problem, because blood transfusion is the most direct and effective means of treatment for severe disease (especially a lot of blood diseases), blood more and more hospital clinical need. However, blood transfusion has great risk. Behavior itself, therefore, blood transfusion is unable to avoid risk factors, such as the patient to lose blood rejection and complications caused by blood transfusion, etc. In addition, the risk of blood transfusion is a blood transfusion easily cause infected patients with serious diseases. So the key lies in how to prevent, first enter the patient's blood, must through the blood collected, inspection, separation, processing, packing and so on use before the test, when using should carefully examine and verify. This program all the links in a are not allowed to slip, and restricted by medical standards (e.g., a lot of disease is still in the window cannot be detected medical reagent), might be caused by serious pathogen infected blood, the blood once and immediately enter into the patient's body will infection is very serious, even can't be cured. As the breakthrough point, this paper puts forward the paper studies the problem of domestic and foreign research on this problem, present situation and research methods of this article and writing framework. Due to blood transfusion of contagious diseases, such as a, b, hepatitis c, syphilis, AIDS and so on, usually there is a serious threat to the life of the patient's health and cannot be cured some will also involve the safety of life and the existence of infectious characteristics. In the process of hospital blood transfusion patients, and was to treat their illness, if infected blood transfusion, will cause the victim's anger and endless responsibility shall be investigated for hospitals and claims disputes. Such disputes will involve the multifaceted issues such as law, medicine,. For the cases of civil disputes, lawsuits, responsibility, imputation criteria, claim amount, etc., the lack of consensus, academic understanding of the laws of the blood (whether as a product) and blood in paid for free also lack basic consistent. The author makes a concrete discussion to it, in case of in the future of blood transfusion infection, the patients can complaint, and the court can judge it.

On this basis, this article first USES the method of comparative law in this chapter first analyzes the legal significance of blood and blood products to distinguish, in order to make the due to blood transfusion infected patients can access to treatment and relief as soon as possible, blood stations and medical units can continue to maintain its own daily work order, maintaining the social stability, distribution of blood transfusion infection must be detailed research of the criminal law, justice, fair and open. The legal responsibility assigned premise condition is clear that blood products and the legal definition of blood, blood or blood products and can be as a "product". It involves the choice of applicable law standard. If blood products and blood conforms to the "product" attribute, the blood stations into a "product" of "operator", medical units into a "product" of the "seller", according to the law of our country, can be used "consumer rights and interests protects a law" and "product quality law of the People's Republic of China" and other relevant regulations of the product liability. If the blood, and blood does not belong to the "products", the definition of patients due to blood transfusion infection disease for violation of the right to life, to the patient health medical units and blood stations must bear the main tort liability. Whether in blood and blood as a "product" before, we need to start with the causal relationship between them is analyzed. First of all should be clear that the blood and the blood are two different concepts. Blood contains immunoglobulin (liquid), blood (visible part) and serum, the article element of middle finger used for clinical blood, whole blood and plasma raw material for production of blood products. Blood products belong to special plasma protein products. Blood and blood in many aspects such as the management to the production and operation have many differences. Then discussed the legal attribute of blood products, from the blood and different point of view to see the blood, is opposite between ideas. The blood products stipulated in the law, as the range of products. Most countries like Germany, Japan, France, in their blood products related laws and regulations agreed to blood products as "products" category, shall apply to the product liability act and the manufacturing material liability act. Blood products attribute is the product, and properties of the blood products, the author think, that is focused on the blood isn't suitable for products of major constituents, hypothesis is suitable for products of major constituents, blood must belong to the category of product: if you are not suited to the product composition elements, then blood should not belong to the category of products. I think, can you have your product combination of elements due to the following points: one is personal property; Secondly, using the production and processing: there are three for liquidity. Whether by means of profit (for sale), excluded from the cognizance of the product. And after hospitals and blood Banks and processing of blood through the patient's equivalent exchange into products. Then this paper introduces the present situation of blood transfusion infection civil liability. This is mainly because the research of this problem in some extraterritorial legislation, theory and practice has been more thorough, discusses the status quo, contribute to an understanding of the problem in-depth, also can know blood transfusion infection civil liability mainly exists in three forms: product liability, contractual liability and general tort liability.

The third chapter is the blood transfusion infection caused by the nature of civil liability of product liability. Whether follows the train of thought, this paper first analyzes the blood transfusion infection civil liability shall be regarded as a kind of product liability, or only a part of blood transfusion infection civil liability shall be regarded as a kind of product liability, and the cause of that. If it might involve many problems, such as blood products, whether the damage caused by blood transfusion (whether there is defect of blood products), blood transfusion is product liability subject hospital or blood stations, etc., to discuss product liability legal consequences if the act constitutes a blood transfusion, and this is the right legal consequences in practice.
In the fourth chapter in this paper then discusses whether the blood transfusion infection civil liability shall be regarded as a kind of general tort liability, or only a part of blood transfusion infection civil liability shall be regarded as a kind of general tort liability, and the cause of that. It also involves a lot of problems, first is the problem of imputation principle, there are a lot of disputes between the academic, fault liability and no-fault liability and fair liability standard. This paper argues that determines the blood stations shall be provided to patients blood infection caused by damages of tort liability, and through the comparison we take a look at what is blood stations responsibility imputation criteria. Blood is the product, is the product liability blood stations, and the product liability of blood stations is product tort liability. In tort liability system, the hospital in the blood transfusion infection of responsibility imputation principles should be in accordance with the no-fault causes blood transfusion infection tort liability imputation. Responsibility and the author suggested that the patient should comply with the fault liability imputation criteria, namely the patient only for their own fault of harmful consequences to bear full responsibility; If the patient does not have the result of the damage fault, don't need to take responsibility alone.
As for the patient's subjective fault, the author think, should implement standard of onus probandi inversion, the patient is not to prove its subjective fault, by medical treatment units and blood stations to carry on the proof to prove the patient's fault. If you can't prove blood stations and medical units blood transfusion infection is caused by the patient's subjective fault, patients do not need to assume responsibility. Because it is based on the patient to professional medical knowledge and lack of understanding, so when a patient with a rare disease called urgently waiting for the treatment of dangerous situation, the patient is not possible for the whole body before symptoms clear about one by one, there will certainly be omissions. And the physician is can to understand the patient's clinical symptoms and grasp. The criminal law theory, and whether the suspect does not need to prove the defendant committing crimes; Public prosecution unit and the plaintiff must prove the defendant or a criminal suspect is guilty, if you can't show the guilty. The court will decide the defendant and the suspect not guilty. Hospital unit, blood stations and patients, as blood products "seller", "producer" and "customers". Therefore, in the blood stations and the legal obligations between hospitals and patients is how to distinguish? According to the general principles of the civil law "regulation, on the other party to the other party has fault, the loss that causes must be have the fault of one party to compensate all loss of injured party: loss of both parties at fault, should according to its actual fault size together share the loss. Assuming that the hospital unit, blood stations and patients of the three, one party has negligence to the blood transfusion infection, is borne by the party alone harmful consequences: if our faults, two of the three should be from the both according to the standard of fault, to contribute ratably to the loss in common: if the three parties are at fault, by three parties according to the standard of fault, to contribute ratably to the loss in common; If the three parties have no fault, should be based on fair by the three parties within the scope of responsibility for the part. The author thinks that, although the blood flow, blood infection to the patient responsible for, however, the law should not be included in the investigated range of patients, namely, patients infected by blood transfusion, cannot ask head and blood donors be liable for damages. The reason is: first, the patient not privy to the details of the donor. Selling blood donors in relevant records in blood stations, but for various reasons, these records may be fabricated has been lost, even if blood stations with this information (blood stations shall store this information with 10 years), patients cannot obtain, more not privy to the details of the donor. In addition, blood donors are usually family circumstances, because of the poor are forced to sell blood. Even if the patient can find blood donors, blood donors also have no economic strength alone bear the liability for compensation for the damage. And, at present a lot of blood donation blood yesterday were first organized led, want to look for blood, is not easy. Even if finally found blood head, because of its often have some underworld property, patients in the vulnerable groups, cannot with the theory. In view of the above has many difficulties, the author suggest remove blood donors, blood head should be outside the scope of legal compensation for damage. If because of blood infection causes. Truly presumption can be blood stations exist faults by blood stations shall undertake liability for the patient. Blood stations in CaiGongXie relations, there is a series of responsibility, such as for the blood donors to provide all the safety, convenience and sanitation facilities: blood stations in pursuance of the mouth must implement physical examination for blood donor in accordance with the health inspection standards, and blood on blood stations shall audit information, are not allowed to accept imposter blood, not allowed to collect too much blood, and frequent blood collected; Finally. Blood stations also collected in dealing with strict blood virus antibody detection, and use of chemical reagents and strict testing instrument of blood through separation, processing and production, storage and packaging. Blood stations if collected unqualified blood wasn't detected in time, cause patient infection, said blood stations at fault, then you must let blood stations take full damage liability to pay compensation. Head, blood donors do not need to be liable for damages to the patient's legal responsibility. Blood stations, hospitals and the health administrative departments should improve the supervision mechanism of the blood quality, resolute don't allow to purchase illegal blood source, increase the blood test standard and strict laws and regulations; Public security units, prosecution should be timely to crack down on illegal blood activities happened: if caused by a blood donor, head of serious blood-borne infections, judicial unit should all the criminal responsibility shall be investigated for the relevant. In addition this paper also discusses whether the blood transfusion infection constitutes damage, whether must take fault liability as the imputation principle, and the cognizance of causality, also need to be examined, the blood transfusion infection responsibility as the pros and cons of general tort liability, and whether it is proper in practice.

Similarly, in this paper, in the fifth chapter discusses whether the blood transfusion infection civil liability shall be recognized as a liability for breach of contract, or only a part of blood transfusion infection civil liability shall be recognized as a liability for breach of contract, and the cause of that. In the process of patient visits to medical institutions, the two sides forming doctor-patient contract contract. The contract has some characteristics as follows: first, doctor-patient contract main body of the two sides are on an equal status. In addition, the patient medical units in attendance register actively, produce the offer; Medical units in accordance with the requirements of the patient to the diagnosis and treatment of behavior, amounts to a promise, so the equality of medical service contract relationship between both sides. Secondly, in terms of both sides of the content of the contract, medical units to provide safe and reliable medical services to patients, blood transfusions nature is a part of the activities of the diagnosis and treatment, and others pay the price. In clinic blood transfusion in patients with stage, medical treatment unit for patient input contains bacteria and virus pollution lead to blood transfusion infection, is actually a medical treatment unit not enforce the contract and shall bear the liability for breach of contract. So, blood transfusion infection dispute "contract law" to be able to apply to adjust. The author thinks that, blood transfusion service as a common behavior of medical service, based on the service between doctor and patient can form the medical service contract, there is no opposition, but I don't agree with the patient's blood transfusion infection for damages in accordance with the contract filed, and by the law of contract law to adjust the relationship of patients and medical units have negative influence on both sides. Scope of liability for breach of contract damages restricted the patient damage to the exercise of the right of claim. Default compensation standard is limited to property damage compensation, in other words, only those who can reasonably foreseeable damage to property can be carried out by the breaching party compensation. And because of the medical staff caused by the fault of the patients' blood transfusion infection, and other accidental damage, in the treatment of phase is the key physical and psychological pain, rather than physical abuse, this does not apply to the compensation of default category, therefore, if the default bringing the blood transfusion infection, the liability for compensation is more difficult. Liability for breach of contract as a kind of strict liability, it damages the space is lesser, even if the patient can get part of the compensation, cannot make up for the loss of the patient all, this is very adverse to the patient.

Finally, the article discussed in the above chapters, on the basis of comprehensive social policy, economics, medical technology and ethical considerations, for our country legislation to make systematic construction should be the choice of this problem. Current legislation because there was no fault of blood transfusion infection cases, against the patient's health, and improve the economic pressure of the patient. Due to lack of specific laws and regulations in the case of uniform standard, lead to court rulings across different, thus causing disputes between doctor and patient are getting worse. The current law to solve no-fault blood transfusion infection despite enacted the tort liability act, but the regulation of the legal problems of blood transfusion is not fully, cannot be effectively applied to the medical damage compensation cases judgment standard. Countries need to introduce the corresponding judicial interpretation as soon as possible, for no fault of blood transfusion infection tort damages no-fault liability principle to specific provisions shall be applicable. At the same time, should establish standard of blood transfusion infection of the social security system, perfecting the relevant laws and regulations, make share the risk of blood transfusion in the social scale, to effectively protect the legitimate rights and interests of patients, blood stations and medical units. Social policy Suggestions to set up the medical liability insurance system, strictly implement the system of blood supply of blood comprehensive detection, and safety in blood, to set up the compensation fund government no-fault blood transfusion infection, improve the system of transfusion related to management of medical institutions, and medical technology and ethical considerations, such as technical measures to prevent blood transfusion infection, blood transfusion infection after relief. More important is to should be the choice of legislation in our country, perfect the relevant legislation of blood transfusion infection, blood transfusion and use of blood products infected with HIV and viral hepatitis patients' legal rights protection "green channel", the epidemiological data as an important evidence to determine the defendant liability, the state aid does not take the place of the infringer liability to pay compensation, medical treatment compensation methods and standards shall be made in the form of legislation regulation, should be infected HIV/AIDS patients should get the disability compensation and compensation for death should make provision. Must build transfusion insurance system.
Key words: blood transfusion; Infection; Infringement; Product liability; Breach of contract; imputation

目  錄
中文摘要 錯誤！未定義書簽。
ABSTRACT VII
引  言 1
一、研究背景與意義 1
（一）輸血感染的高發(fā)率 1
（二）國內(nèi)外有關(guān)立法對此問題的應(yīng)對 2
（三）上述立法所引發(fā)的法律問題 11
二、國內(nèi)外研究現(xiàn)狀 12
三、研究方法 16
（一）比較法研究的方法 16
（二）歷史研究的方法 16
（三）類型化研究的方法 16
四、寫作框架 16
第一章 輸血感染民事責(zé)任理論概述 18
第一節(jié) 血液與血液制品區(qū)分的法律意義 19
一、生產(chǎn)者和經(jīng)營者不同 19
二、是否屬于藥品的范圍不同 20
三、是否能夠獨立承擔(dān)民事責(zé)任不同 20
四、生產(chǎn)過程不同 20
五、導(dǎo)致感染時所造成的危害后果不同 20
第二節(jié) 血液制品的法律屬性 21
第三節(jié) 血液的法律屬性 22
一、各國關(guān)于產(chǎn)品的規(guī)定 22
二、我國存在的爭論 22
三、本文的觀點 24
四、血液的特殊性 26
第四節(jié) 輸血感染的含義和原因 27
一、輸血感染的定義 27
二、感染輸血的原因 28
三、輸血感染的分類 29
四、輸血感染的危害 29
第五節(jié) 輸血行為的法律屬性界定：產(chǎn)品提供與服務(wù)提供 30
第二章 輸血行為產(chǎn)品責(zé)任分析 34
第一節(jié) 輸血行為產(chǎn)品責(zé)任構(gòu)成要件分析 35
一、血液構(gòu)成產(chǎn)品 35
二、損害是否因輸血造成（血液制品是否存在缺陷） 35
三、輸血行為產(chǎn)品責(zé)任主體 37
第二節(jié) 輸血行為構(gòu)成產(chǎn)品責(zé)任法律后果分析 52
一、輸血行為產(chǎn)品責(zé)任概述 52
二、民事責(zé)任的構(gòu)成要件 55
三、民事責(zé)任的賠償范圍 55
四、民事責(zé)任的賠償原則 57
五、賠償項目和賠償標(biāo)準(zhǔn) 58
六、爭議解決途徑 59
七、注意問題 60
第三節(jié) 學(xué)者觀點和法院判決 61
第三章 輸血行為侵權(quán)責(zé)任分析 70
第一節(jié) 輸血感染侵權(quán)責(zé)任的歸責(zé)原則 71
一、關(guān)于輸血感染侵權(quán)責(zé)任的歸責(zé)原則的爭論 71
二、血站侵權(quán)責(zé)任的歸責(zé)原則 72
三、醫(yī)院的歸責(zé)原則 74
四、患者的過錯責(zé)任 76
五、血站責(zé)任、醫(yī)院責(zé)任和患者責(zé)任的關(guān)系 77
六、供血者、血頭的責(zé)任 80
第二節(jié) 輸血行為侵權(quán)責(zé)任構(gòu)成要件分析 82
一、醫(yī)院和血站的違法行為 82
二、損害事實 83
三、因果聯(lián)系 86
四、過錯 88
第三節(jié) 輸血感染侵權(quán)損害賠償責(zé)任主體89
一、輸血感染侵權(quán)損害賠償責(zé)任主體類型 89
二、患者請求權(quán)的選擇問題 92
三、醫(yī)院和血站的免責(zé) 95
第四節(jié) 輸血感染侵權(quán)損害舉證責(zé)任 97
一、舉證責(zé)任的含義 97
二、我國輸血感染糾紛舉證責(zé)任倒置的應(yīng)用及舉證范圍的劃分 98
第五節(jié) 輸血感染侵權(quán)損害賠償范圍 100
一、確立輸血感染人身傷害損害賠償?shù)谋匾?100
二、輸血感染侵權(quán)損害賠償范圍和數(shù)額的限定規(guī)則 101
三、輸血感染人身損害賠償?shù)姆秶?102
第六節(jié) 輸血行為認定為一般侵權(quán)責(zé)任利弊分析 105
一、利 105
二、弊 106
第四章 輸血行為違約責(zé)任分析 107
第一節(jié) 輸血行為違約形態(tài)分析 107
一、當(dāng)事人關(guān)系 107
二、前提條件 108
三、合同法下的嚴(yán)格責(zé)任是否適用血液感染 109
四、政策上的理由比較中國與美國現(xiàn)行法優(yōu)劣 113
第二節(jié) 輸血行為違約責(zé)任法律后果分析 116
第五章 我國輸血感染民事責(zé)任制度構(gòu)建 117
第一節(jié) 我國現(xiàn)行立法相關(guān)規(guī)定 117
第二節(jié) 社會政策考慮 117
一、建立醫(yī)療責(zé)任保險制度 117
二、嚴(yán)格執(zhí)行采供血全面檢測和用血安全制度 119
三、建立政府無過錯輸血感染補償基金的建議 120
四、完善輸血醫(yī)療機構(gòu)相關(guān)管理制度 121
第三節(jié) 醫(yī)學(xué)技術(shù)和倫理方面的考慮 131
一、預(yù)防輸血感染的技術(shù)措施 131
二、輸血感染后的救濟 132
第四節(jié) 我國立法應(yīng)然選擇 133
一、完善輸血感染相關(guān)立法 133
二、建立輸血保險體系 140
結(jié)  語 141
參考文獻 144
 
引  言

一、研究背景與意義
（一）輸血感染的高發(fā)率
血液作為人體的重要組成部分，也被稱為“生命之水”，被廣泛應(yīng)用于醫(yī)療活動之中。隨著醫(yī)療技術(shù)的不斷提升，臨床用血量不斷增大，血液制品的種類不斷增加，因輸血而感染病毒（如丙肝、艾滋病等）的情況層出不窮。輸血感染是指患者在醫(yī)療過程當(dāng)中被輸入了帶有病毒或者細菌（諸如艾滋病，各種病毒性肝炎，敗血癥，痢疾，肺結(jié)核，梅毒等傳染性病毒或者細菌）的血液或者血制品，給身體帶來了巨大的損害。實踐中出現(xiàn)比較多的就是病毒性肝炎和艾滋病的傳播。衛(wèi)生部1993年8月《關(guān)于進一步加強當(dāng)前肝炎防治工作的通知》指出當(dāng)時中國丙型肝炎感染嚴(yán)重。根據(jù)調(diào)查表明：血站和單采血漿站、血庫、醫(yī)療是造成丙型肝炎流行的高危單位；供血、輸血、靜脈吸毒、經(jīng)常靜脈注射的人群等為高危人群，一旦感染和發(fā)生病毒性肝炎，極其可能導(dǎo)致慢性肝炎、肝硬化、肝癌等嚴(yán)重后果。目前全世界公認的艾滋病傳播途徑是：性接觸、血液傳播、母-嬰傳播。世界上艾滋病傳播的主要途徑是性傳播，但是輸血感染也越來越多，因該說人類從認識艾滋病病毒一開始，就已經(jīng)認識到了艾滋病病毒可以通過血液和血液制品傳播的這一特點。截止2007年10月底，累計報告的艾滋病感染者和病人22萬3千5百余例，其中，注射毒品傳播占38.5%；既往采供血傳播占19.3%；異性性傳播占17.8%；同性性傳播占1.0%；輸血及使用血制品傳播占4.3%；傳播占母嬰1.2%；傳播途徑不詳占17.9%。也就是說輸血感染者的絕對人數(shù)從2001年到2007年的幾年時間里爆炸性地增加了20余倍（22.3*4.3/3.0*1.5-1）。
1982年6月，美國CDC發(fā)現(xiàn)了新情況:一位59歲的血友病患者發(fā)生了艾滋病感染癥狀，揭示了血液（經(jīng)輸血）傳播在發(fā)病種的作用這無疑使人們不得不開始正視現(xiàn)實。

結(jié)  語

輸血感染民事責(zé)任一直以來都是一個比較爭議的話題，爭議的關(guān)鍵原因在于血液的法律定性以及輸血所導(dǎo)致的眾多的社會不安因素和血液的安全性等一系列的難題，這些問題的重點主要集中在如下多個部分：輸血感染適用哪種責(zé)任體系，如果適用侵權(quán)，那么侵權(quán)損害賠償責(zé)任的歸責(zé)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)問題，醫(yī)院單位及血站所承擔(dān)法律責(zé)任的法律性質(zhì)和理論依據(jù)的問題包括患方請求權(quán)的選擇問題。
針對學(xué)界有關(guān)血液的法律屬性定位，學(xué)界持兩種意見，同意是產(chǎn)品的看法以及反對是產(chǎn)品的看法，這兩種看法是完全相反的觀點，筆者持反對的意見認為血液不應(yīng)該屬于產(chǎn)品的范疇，那些同意血液是產(chǎn)品看法的學(xué)者也是有其存在的觀點，可是筆者覺得無論是從《產(chǎn)品質(zhì)量法》所規(guī)定的針對產(chǎn)品的認定或者是從醫(yī)院的作用及性質(zhì)上、包括平等責(zé)任標(biāo)準(zhǔn)、維護弱勢地位的人群需求而言，都不宜把血液認定為產(chǎn)品。
從法律所界定的血液屬性而導(dǎo)致的輸血感染損害侵權(quán)責(zé)任賠償?shù)臍w責(zé)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的觀點也都各不相同，有專家提出輸血感染損害侵權(quán)責(zé)任賠償必須符合無過錯責(zé)任標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，也有學(xué)者建議可以符合過錯責(zé)任標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，只是無論是否符合過錯責(zé)任標(biāo)準(zhǔn)或是符合無過錯責(zé)任標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，在輸血感染損害侵權(quán)賠償案件中都是行不通的，筆者利用研究無過錯責(zé)任標(biāo)準(zhǔn)和過錯責(zé)任標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的不足，認為，在侵權(quán)人有過錯時，應(yīng)符合過錯推定責(zé)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，其兼容了過錯責(zé)任標(biāo)準(zhǔn)和無過錯責(zé)任標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的特點，更有利于對病人合法權(quán)益的維護，在侵權(quán)人不存在過錯時，筆者覺得符合公平責(zé)任標(biāo)準(zhǔn)去補償病人所受到的傷害，能夠有效安慰病人的情緒，在醫(yī)患糾紛緊張的狀況下能夠?qū)崿F(xiàn)社會的安定。
法律對血站承擔(dān)責(zé)任的性質(zhì)或者醫(yī)院承擔(dān)責(zé)任的認定依據(jù)，在學(xué)界的看法也各有不同，其中對血站承擔(dān)法律責(zé)任的性質(zhì)主要有不同的三種看法：第一種看法認為血站 必須承擔(dān)侵權(quán)責(zé)任賠償，第二種看法認為血站必須承擔(dān)損害違約責(zé)任賠償，第三種看法認為血站必須承擔(dān)違背契約責(zé)任的損害責(zé)任賠償。筆者贊同第一種看法，理由是血站和病人之間不存在合同的約束關(guān)系，第三種看法即便是符合法理的，可是它把病人的法律權(quán)益認定為感染輸血案件的第三方，這增加了病人的維權(quán)困難，限制了維護病人的合法權(quán)益。對醫(yī)院所承擔(dān)責(zé)任的依據(jù)理論，學(xué)界也有諸多意見不合的觀點：侵權(quán)責(zé)任說,加害給付說，違約責(zé)任說。筆者贊同加害給付說的建議，加害給付說其實就是說醫(yī)院在輸血感染損害侵權(quán)責(zé)任賠償中，其做法既是侵權(quán)活動也是違約活動，形成侵權(quán)活動和違約活動的競合。
在病人選擇權(quán)請求的挑選方面，筆者建議病人可以選擇侵權(quán)請求權(quán)更有利 于對其合法權(quán)益的維護，由于病人選擇侵權(quán)請求權(quán)，病人對醫(yī)院的挑選范圍相對較大，其舉證難度相對也降低，而且挑選侵權(quán)請求權(quán)，病人應(yīng)當(dāng)要求醫(yī)方負責(zé)精神損害
賠償，由于按照違約責(zé)任是不可以要求醫(yī)方負責(zé)全部的損害精神賠償。
總之，在實際的生活里，輸血存在很大的風(fēng)險性，甚至?xí)䥽?yán)重損害患者的健康。因為目前的醫(yī)學(xué)技術(shù)非常的有限，很多通過血液方式傳播的嚴(yán)重疾病，人們?nèi)狈ψ銐虻牧私�，艾滋病、各種肝炎等嚴(yán)重的疾病在初期傳染的時候是很難被檢測出來。因此，在目前有限的醫(yī)學(xué)技術(shù)條件下，不管是再發(fā)達的國家，都會遇到因輸血感染而造成嚴(yán)重疾病的可能性，輸血感染的風(fēng)險性一直得不到完全的預(yù)防，輸血感染在法律上又具有很大的爭議，如果可以健全有關(guān)輸血方面的法律條文、成立輸血保險責(zé)任以及社會保障制度，建立補償輸血風(fēng)險基金，輸血感染便擁有了良好的可控性。為了增強輸血的安全性，降低輸血感染事故產(chǎn)生風(fēng)險，筆者覺得一定要采取應(yīng)對的措施實施預(yù)防。首先，建立和輸血感染有關(guān)的法律法規(guī)。制定輸血感染有關(guān)的法律，能夠有效的降低這類案件的產(chǎn)生機率。我國原有的立律規(guī)定缺少了針對輸血感染的明確規(guī)定和清晰定位，因此一定要通過重新制定法律或者修改現(xiàn)行的法律來明確醫(yī)療單位、血站和受血者在進行治療輸血的時候所擁有的權(quán)利以及承擔(dān)責(zé)任，對感染輸血案件的矛盾性質(zhì)、歸責(zé)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)以及怎樣適用法律等實行規(guī)范。此外，提高血源安全的管理，保護血液安全的可靠。血站要求對釆供血的整個過程進行安全監(jiān)督，致力倡導(dǎo)健康的人無償獻血，努力降低或者消除賣血，采血的非法單位，從而提高血液檢測技術(shù)分析，減少病毒感染的“窗口期”。醫(yī)院當(dāng)為病人輸血時需要履行用血手續(xù)完備，嚴(yán)格遵守操作規(guī)范，堅決不使用非正規(guī)途徑獲得的血源，醫(yī)院在進行輸血前一定要了解血液的全部信息 包括供應(yīng)血液的血站是不是存在采供血資質(zhì)。此外，法律應(yīng)當(dāng)提高對血站與醫(yī)院的血液進行有效監(jiān)督。增強在管理血液方面有諸多豐富的經(jīng)驗值得人們參考，例如其在國內(nèi)創(chuàng)建了國家血液安全委員會，由17位成員構(gòu)成，主席是1位血液病領(lǐng)域的權(quán)威專家，其他委員分別從護士、社會學(xué)家、公眾利益代表者、衛(wèi)生專家、醫(yī)院檢驗師、經(jīng)濟衛(wèi)生學(xué)家、輸血醫(yī)生、律師、麻醉師、醫(yī)院血庫等挑選，除一位專職委員外，其余均為兼職。NBSC的活動經(jīng)費來源于聯(lián)邦政府。這一外部監(jiān)督系統(tǒng)可以收集到來自四面八方的信息，盡早發(fā)現(xiàn)血液管理中存在的嚴(yán)重問題,并及時的上報，在提高對血液監(jiān)督或是管理方面非常奏效。我國也應(yīng)該借鑒其的成功經(jīng)驗，確保血液的質(zhì)量。最后，創(chuàng)建一個統(tǒng)一的輸血感染的社會保障機制。參照現(xiàn)行的民事法理論，我國目前處于經(jīng)濟飛速發(fā)展中的階段 在不斷進步中或許無法避免很多未知的危險所導(dǎo)致的損害，需要由社會集體來一起承擔(dān)。在歐洲，對受害者的人身傷害賠償金額絕大多數(shù)可以讓社會保險來承擔(dān)。在英國，帕特里克•阿蒂亞建議在人身傷害法律范圍取消現(xiàn)行的全部侵權(quán)法，全面實行以保險的方式來處理，不需要去考慮受害人在損害中的原因力的多少以及過錯標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，都可以得到賠償。也有甚者提出通過無過錯的賠償保險制度更好的代替侵權(quán)法，到目前為止，還沒有任何的國家通過并執(zhí)行了這個意見,但是，新西蘭的處理方法卻正好相反，新西蘭制定了統(tǒng)一的人身社會傷害保險機制，而對傷害的形成因素 不進行具體的考慮，對前述做法更接近于全盤接受。筆者覺得上述所說的幾個國家和地區(qū)的做法有些不妥，因為不可能對不是以完美健康狀況離開醫(yī)院的人都進行補償，醫(yī)療保險則不能將交易成本控制在適當(dāng)?shù)姆秶鷥?nèi)。但是不難看出建立輸血感染的社會維護制度，有利于輸血感染風(fēng)險的分攤，尤其是在無過失輸血感染侵權(quán)損 害賠償案件中，更有利于維護患者權(quán)益的實現(xiàn)，也能夠有效降低血站與醫(yī)院的負擔(dān)風(fēng)險。

本文編號：554576