Litigations for Complications of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Excursus on the Criminal Responsibility of Arbitrary Medical Treatment
The case involved performing a cardiac catheterization for patients, but the physician has not giving any notification in advance to a medical group equipped with extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in the cooperative hospital, and make the group to stand by. As the result of that the team of ECMO arrived at the hospital for treatment one hour later, and the patient eventually died of multiple organ failure. The point of contention is whether the relative of the patient could make a consent with misunderstanding, because they mistakenly recognizes the effect of ECMO on returning to life, thereby underestimating the risk of cardiac catheterization, when the physician said the ECMO-group could support the operation. If the answer is positive, then “arbitrary medical treatment” must be reviewed. How to evaluate the subsequent medical behavior, when the consent of cardiac catheterization is invalid, it is believed in this article that theory of injury should be taken, that is, the medical treatment has already met the legal element of the offense of battery. Even if the consent (agreement) of the patient is obtained by fraud, there is still no affirmative defense, so the offense of battery is be fulfilled. And if the patient is unfortunately dying, then should further explore whether it constitutes a crime of injury resulting in death.