專斷或選擇—卵巢切除案：論多重醫療選擇與醫師告知說明義務【學習式判解評析】 試閱
Arbitrary or Choice: The Oophorectomy Case-On Multiple Medical Options and Doctors’ Obligation to Inform and Explain
若醫師之告知說明義務作為客觀注意義務，並且依義務違反關聯評價過失，因為違反告知說明與製造法益侵害風險無關，所以醫療過程符合醫療準則，必定不成立醫療過失。法院見解形同否定病患之個人自決權。另一個解決方案為假設同意，醫師承擔傷害未遂或重傷未遂之責任。或是在不承認假設同意的情形，替代方案為限縮醫師的告知說明範圍。如果醫療方式有多種選擇，再加上這些選項之間有重要的風險差異時，醫師負有義務向病患告知說明所有的醫療選項與其中的風險差異。
If the doctor’s obligation to inform and explain is regarded as an objective duty of care, and the negligence is evaluated in connection with the violation of the obligation, because the violation of notification has nothing to do with creating the risk of legal interest infringement, so the medical process complies with medical standards, medical negligence will certainly not be established. The court’s opinion was tantamount to denying the patient’s right to individual self-determination. Another solution is to presumptively agree that the physician is liable for attempted injury or attempted serious injury. Or, where presumed consent is not recognized, the alternative is to limit the scope of the physician’s disclosure. If there are multiple options for medical treatment and there are important risk differences between these options, the physician has an obligation to inform the patient about all medical options and the risk differences among them.
057-073
