篇名

心理師使用恢復記憶療法而對第三人負注意義務【寰宇醫事裁判】   試閱

並列篇名

Mental Health Professional Has a Duty to Third Parties When Using Recovered Memory Therapy

作者
中文摘要

被告為K提供諮商服務,K指稱受其父即原告性虐待。被告通報性侵案件後,調查顯示尚無原告性侵其兩位女兒之證據,故不起訴原告夫婦。嗣後原告夫婦指控被告因使用恢復記憶療法致K產生錯誤記憶,使原告不僅受到虛偽指控,更因此與K斷絕往來。一審法院認為,被告僅僅對其個案K負有注意義務,而不包含第三人原告夫婦,進而判原告敗訴。惟上訴法院認為恢復記憶療法有致錯誤記憶之危險,被告可預見其危險將使原告受有虛偽指控之可能,何況被告具有專業能力來防範原告受到此等令人羞恥的虛偽指控,故而具有限的注意義務。密西根上訴法院爰撤銷一審判決並發回。

英文摘要

Shortly after the defendant, a licensed professional counselor, has provided counseling to K, K purportedly remembered that her father had physically and sexually abused her. Therefore, the defendant reported the allegations to the Department of Human services. However, the investigators found no physical evidence that K’s father had been or was being physically or sexually abused, and thus no charges were brought against K’s parent. Thereafter, the plaintiff, K’s parent, alleged that the defendant treated K with “Recovered Memory Therapy”, which improperly made false memories of sexual abuse. The plaintiff maintained that K severed all ties with her parents. The trial court agreed that the defendant had no duty of care to avoid harming third parties with her treatment of K. However, it is entirely foreseeable that the use of suggestive techniques to recover memories might result in the creation of false memories of abuse by the plaintiff. The defendant is in the best position to avoid the harm caused by the introduction of false memories. As a result, the defendant owes a limited duty of care to the plaintiff. Court of Appeals of Michigan reverse and remand for further proceedings.

起訖頁

121-127

出版單位
DOI

10.53106/241553062024110097007  複製DOI  DOI查詢

QRCode

數位整合服務
產品服務
讀者服務專線:+886-2-23756688   傳真:+886-2-23318496   地址:臺北市館前路28號7樓

Copyright © 元照出版 All rights reserved. 版權所有,禁止轉貼節錄
TOP