醫療常規與醫師的注意義務【醫事法學教室】 試閱
The Medical Standard and Due Diligence of the Physicians
醫療常規雖無明確的指引，但因臺灣的醫療糾紛鑑定機構皆為相關醫學專業之權威機構，鑑定人員均已熟悉相關醫療行為之操作方式，故司法實務以之作為判斷注意義務之標準，應係符合成本與效率的方法。且醫療行為有無過失，不能單指客觀注意義務之違反，仍須判斷主觀上有無預見結果發生之可能性，並已經採取迴避危險發生之措施。醫師對於可預見之結果，若已善盡告知義務及採取迴避結果發生之必要行為，即應認為已盡注意義務。對於無法預見之結果，並無告知義務，亦不具有可歸責事由。
Though there is no explicit guideline on medical routine, all domestic institutions which assess medical disputes are medical authorities, and every assessor is thus familiar with operations of medical field treatments. Therefore, it is costeffective for judicial practice to make their assessment the standard of judging doctors’ due diligence. Furthermore, for medical treatments to be considered as medical malpractice, not only a violation against the objective due diligence must be involved, but also a judgement must be made on whether a doctor subjectively predicts the possibility of facing the consequences and takes measures to avoid risks accordingly. As for predictable consequences, if the doctor fulfills the inform obligation and adopts necessary measures to avoid the risks, she / he should be considered to achieve doctors’ due diligence. For unpredictable consequences, there is no inform obligation nor any responsible cause.
137-142
