開立過敏藥物致死案：忽視藥物過敏史之醫師刑責【學習式判解評析】 試閱
Case of Prescription of Allergy Medication Leads to Fatality: Criminal Liability of Physicians for Neglecting Drug Allergy History
本案法院認定醫師用藥構成刑法第284條前段的過失傷害罪，主要基於兩個核心理由：違反注意義務和因果關係確立。二審雖將刑期從2月提高至6月，惟判決中程序爭點：對於親屬代理告訴權是否逾期，應如何計算，以及實體上診所如何確保查閱患者藥物過敏史的標準作業流程缺乏探討，對「不得已使用時」的告知同意內容論述不足。此外，就藥物不良反應之判斷說理略顯簡陋，尤其是病患半年後死亡（死因為吸入性肺炎和呼吸衰竭），未能深入探討廣泛水泡性固定型藥物疹是否構成刑法上的相當因果關係中斷。
The court determined that the physician’s prescription constituted negligent injury under the first part of article 284 of the Criminal code, primarily on the basis of two core reasons: breach of the duty of care and the establishment of causation. Despite the appellate court’s decision to increase the sentence from two months to six months, the ruling didn’t address procedural issues. These included the calculation of the time limit for relatives to file a complaint on behalf of the patient and the clinic’s obligation to ensure Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for reviewing patients’ medication allergy histories. Furthermore, there was an absence of adequate discourse concerning the content of informed consent necessary for ‘’unavoidable us’’. Moreover, the reasoning underpinning for determination of adverse drug reactions was somewhat simplistic. Of particular concern is the patient’s subsequent demise six months later, due to aspiration pneumonia and respiratory failure. The court’s failure to thoroughly examine whether generalized bullous fixed drug eruption constituted an interruption of the causality under criminal law is particularly disconcerting.
068-087
