同志電影輔導性侵少年案：心理師之注意義務與臨床專業裁量【本期企劃】 試閱
The Use of LGBT Films in Adolescent Victim-Turned Sex Offender Counseling: The Standard of Care and Professional Clinical Discretion of Psychologists Clinical Discretion of Psychologists
醫療法第82條之修正將「合理臨床專業裁量」概念明文化，不過，卻未見有與心理師過失責任相關民、刑事判決對此概念深入討論，目前似乎僅臺北高等行政法院95年簡字第676號判決有相關探討。由於心理諮商與心理治療存在眾多理論學派，單以注意義務判斷過失責任易生標準不一之問題，本文建議採用「值得尊重的少數原則」為輔助原則判斷心理師專業處置上必要性（合理臨床專業裁量），藉此完善過失責任之判斷。
The concept of “professional clinical discretion” became a statutory provision after the amendment of Article 82 of the Medical Care Act; however, there are almost no discussions on this concept in civil or criminal judgements concerning psychologists. The only court decision is the Judgement Jiǎn-Zì No. 676 of Taipei High Administrative Court in 2006. Nevertheless, due to the large number of different and conflicting schools of psychotherapy, it is inappropriate to determine a psychologist’s conduct solely based on a predefined duty of care. In order to refine the determination of psychologists’ negligence liability, this paper proposes the Respectable Minority Rule as a supplementary standard.
007-020
