精神科強制住院於民法之適用性【寰宇醫事裁判】 試閱
On the Applicability of Compulsory Psychiatric Admission in Civil Law
原告X因罹患躁鬱症、酒精成癮且具自殺念頭，而遭強制住院。嗣後疑因醫師投與過量鋰鹽而致X藥物中毒，X遂以債務不履行、僱用人責任、侵權責任等向指定醫院負責人Y求償。大分地方法院認為，由於指定醫院有義務收容強制住院之患者並提供治療，費用全由都道府縣等負擔，再加上強制住院患者無論自身意願為何，都必須強制被收容在設施中，因此強制住院可被視為一種公權力之行使。地方法院認為X因主治醫師之過失而受損害，因由大分縣承擔國家賠償責任，而Y負起僱用人責任；又強制住院乃公權力之行使而不需X之同意，就此不能認定X與指定醫院間有診療契約；再者X並未充分舉證說明Y違反何種安全顧慮義務；且Y是否有過失侵權，亦無具體事實立證。綜上理由，大分地方法院認判X請求無理由。
Plaintiff X was sent to a psychiatric admission compulsorily, because he suffered from bipolar disorder, alcohol addiction, and suicidal ideation. Subsequently, it was suspected that X was poisoned by a physician overdose of lithium, and X sought compensation from Y, the person in charge of the designated hospital, for non-payment of debt, employment liability, and tort liability. The Oita District Court held that since the designated hospital was obligated to admit and provide treatment to patients who were compulsorily admitted and the costs were borne by the prefectural government, and that compulsorily admitted patients were compulsorily sent to the facility regardless of their wishes, the compulsory admission could be considered an exercise of public authority. The district court held that the Oita Prefecture was responsible for the state compensation for the damages suffered by X due to the negligence of the treating physician, and that Y was responsible for the liability of the employer. On the other hand, since the compulsory admission was an exercise of public authority without X’s consent, it could not be concluded that there was a medical contract between X and the designated hospital. Moreover, X didn’t sufficiently prove what kind of safety concern obligation Y violated, and there were no concrete facts to prove whether Y had negligently infringed the right. For the reasons above, the Oita District Court held that X’s request was unjustified.
133-138
