篇名

【醫療民事法】胎兒肢體缺損產前超音波未檢出案:產前超音波的極限   免費試閱

並列篇名

Fetal Limb Defects Not Detected byPrenatal Ultrasound Scanning : The Limitation of Prenatal Ultrasound Scanning

作者
中文摘要

裁判字號 臺灣高等法院臺中分院100年度醫上字第4號
引用法條 民法第195條、227-1條,優生保健法第9條第1項第4款、第11條第2項
原告甲於二位被告醫師所開設之診所產檢,先後共接受十四次超音波檢查,於產前檢查過程中均未發現胎兒形體缺陷,然而卻產下患有左小耳畸形、左手缺損(整隻手殘缺)、左腳趾連趾等狀之新生兒。甲主張因二位被告醫師之過失使其誤認胎兒正常之情況下而繼續妊娠,致未能及時施行人工流產手術,終產下重度肢障兒,自屬侵害人工流產之權利,而請求損害賠償。一審判決原告敗訴,業經二、三審法院均駁回原告上訴而確定。事實審判決理由略以審酌鑑定意見謂產前超音波檢查未必能發現胎兒四肢畸形,且本件並無證據證明被告醫師進行超音波檢查時,有何能檢出而未檢出之過失。二位作者就產前超音波檢查之極限、法院對鑑定意見的證據調查、同類案件的判決比較、本件責任論斷之構成要件以及目前優生保健法相關規定等,有深入淺出之評論。

英文摘要

The plaintiff undertook her prenatal care at the defendant doctor A’s and B’s clinics. Totally 6 times of prenatal ultrasound scanning were performed by defendant A before 20th week of gestation, and another 8 scanning were done between the period of 22nd week of gestation and delivery by y defendant B. The plaintiff states that both defendants told her that the fetus was normal after each scanning and consequently did not advise her to undertake high level ultrasound, yet the newborn delivered was diagnosed to be a victim of totally absence of left arm, syndactyly of left toes, microtia of left ear, atrial septal defect, atresia of ductus arteriosus, and other multiple anomalies. The plaintiff claimed for damages of the wrongful birth. However, the defendants disputed that they were not obligated to detect all the fetal anomalies, moreover not all fetal anomalies could be detected prenatally by ultrasound because of maternal obesity or poor fetal position and gesture that hindered the ultrasound scanning. The District Court found for the defendant, and the plaintiff appealed. The High Court dismissed the appeal based on the reason that since the defendants had recorded “limbs not clearly recognized” on medical charts and the sensitivity of detecting fetal limb anomalies by ultrasound prenatally was 25% by a medical literature, though the fetal limb defects were not detected, yet the defendants could not be found negligent. This review by two authors elaborated several disputes regarding this case, such as the probative value of medical literature and expert testimony, and the obligation of prenatal ultrasound scanner under medical contract in this case.

起訖頁

128-166

出版單位
DOI

10.3966/241553062017040006008  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