臨床條件之法律明確性原則認定──以罹患慢性腎臟病的病人為例【月旦時論】 試閱
Principle of Legal Certainty of Clinical Conditions- Example of The Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease
大法官對法律明確性寬嚴審查規範，多以「牽涉基本權的侵害、限制越嚴重，則對法律明確性的要求越趨嚴格」，當「涉及受規範人為具有特定專業知識之人，且對該規範領域有較高之注意義務，則無妨放寬對法律明確性的要求」。然而，當涉及末期病人之維生醫療，特別是罹患慢性腎臟病而需要接受透析治療的病人，醫事人員於決定「不施行」與「終止或撤除」透析治療之專業判斷時，其臨床條件的規範將衍生法律明確性原則認定標準之衝突。若醫事人員為規避此不確定性所衍生之法律責任的問題，而進行「無效醫療」，不僅無法達成其醫療目的，還會使得病患遭受無謂的痛苦，有違制定「安寧緩和醫療條例」與「病人自主權利法」之初衷。
The justices’ lenient and strict review norms for the clarity of the law mostly stated that “the more serious the infringement and restriction of fundamental rights are, the stricter the requirement for clarity of the law.” If “there is a higher duty of care in this regulatory field, there is no harm in relaxing the requirements for legal clarity.” However, when it comes to the life-sustaining treatment of terminal ill patients, especially patients suffering from chronic kidney disease who need dialysis treatment, when medical staff make professional judgments on “withholding” and “terminating or withdrawing” dialysis, its clinical conditions The norms will derive the principle of legal clarity to identify the conflict of standards. If medical personnel conduct “futile therapy” in order to avoid the problem of legal liability arising from this uncertainty, they will not only fail to achieve their medical purpose, but will also cause unnecessary suffering to the patient, which violates the enactment of the “Hospice Palliative Care Act” and the original intention of the “Patient Autonomy Act.”
108-126
