從德國憲法裁判兼論精神疾病病人之人權與新制精神衛生法——介於健康權與自決權之困境【醫法新論】 試閱
On Human Right in Patients with Psychiatric Disorders and New Amended Mental Health Act from Germany Constitutional Court Trials–A Dilemma between Right to Health and Self-Determination
本文介紹兩則審理精神疾病病人接受強制住院與強制治療的德國憲法裁判,其一對於強制治療不及於身體共病治療認為有違平等原則,其二對無辨識且無控制能力之精神疾病病人,以結束住院為前提的強制針劑治療違反身體不受傷害及訴訟權。臺灣新制精神衛生法中強制住院規定改為法官與兩位參審員多數決評議制,由於臨床醫療人員在治療無病識感之精神疾病病人,向來就病人於健康權與自決權間處於兩難困境,新制強制住院、病患權益促進的治療同意權與消除歧視之修法,對於病人權益應有大幅促進效果,惟與德國之法官審理模式相比,我國新制強制住院是否給予病人完整審級權益,尚待未來實務操作與程序法規完善。
This article introduces two Germany constitutional trial on the mandatory hospitalization and compulsory treatment of patients with psychiatric disorders. One of them concluded that the lack in consideration of physical comorbidities in compulsory treatment violated the principle of equality. The second one concluded that the patient without ability of insight and control was forced to receive injection therapy based the goal to end the hospitalization violated the right to immunity from corporeal injury and right of litigation. The mandatory hospitalization from new amended mental health act have been changed to decision by majority in judicial deliberation by one judge and two lay judges in Taiwan. The clinical medical providers treating patients without insight for psychiatric disorders always encounter in a dilemma between their right to health and right to self-determination. The amended mandatory hospitalization, the right to consent in treatment and the elimination of discrimination would promote patient to improve their right. However, compared with German legislation, whether the new system of mandatory hospitalization gives patients complete right of litigation during the trial remain yet in future accumulation in practice and completion of procedural regulations.
142-159