海峡两岸医疗纠纷处理机制比较研究

发布时间：2019-04-24 20:30

【摘要】：随着深化医疗改革的推进和法治国家建设的完善,人们的法律意识不断提高,对医疗品质有了更高的要求,但由于医疗纠纷的处理机制还不完善,因此医患矛盾愈演愈烈。纵观近几年的数据,医疗纠纷案件每年都呈现增长的趋势,给医疗机构、患者、法院、调解机构、卫生部门造成了巨大的压力。海峡两岸本是同根同源,具有相同的历史背景和文化底蕴,近年来海峡两岸不断促进经济往来和文化交流,更让我们我认识到在海峡的对岸也有相似的医患矛盾问题,虽然海峡两岸司法制度有所不同,但在全球化大背景下,海峡两岸更应该加深了解、取长补短,完善医疗纠纷解决机制,缓解医患矛盾,促进和谐社会的发展。本文通过分析海峡两岸的医疗纠纷发展现状,对比分析海峡两岸非诉讼解决机制、民事解决机制、刑事解决机制中的核心问题,针对海峡两岸不同的立法精神和解决方式提出完善建议,希望海峡两岸在纠纷的处理方式上能取长补短,完善海峡两岸的纠纷处理机制,缓解医患矛盾。本文分为四个部分:第一部分分析了海峡两岸医疗纠纷发生的原因和特点以及海峡两岸医疗纠纷诉讼和非诉讼的现状,主要理清了海峡两岸医疗纠纷现状的异同。第二部分分析了海峡两岸医患法律关系的特点,对比了海峡两岸在医疗纠纷中对基础医患法律关系的不同处理。第三部分阐述了ADR制度引进的意义、功能和特点,进一步分析ADR制度在大陆的适用情况,比较了大陆和台湾ADR解决模式在实际应用中的困境,对大陆发展改革ADR解决模式提出了几点建议。第四部分基于海峡两岸民事法律同是受到德、日等大陆法系国家的影响,海峡两岸在处理民事医疗过失的方式上具有很大的相似性。首先具体分析了海峡两岸民事诉讼处理的相关政策,其次,针对海峡两岸在民事诉讼处理中的重点问题——民事举证责任的转换,对比了海峡两岸不同的立法精神,回顾了大陆举证责任的发展,介绍了大陆已经逐步建立起的多元化举证责任体系。而海峡对岸的台湾虽然已经逐步发展出举证责任缓和学说但还没有建立起完整统一的举证责任制度,大陆的实践经验值得台湾参考和借鉴。第五部分分析了海峡两岸医疗纠纷刑事诉讼模式。首先简要介绍了海峡两岸的医疗纠纷刑事理念,其次对医疗刑事诉讼的重点问题——医疗纠纷刑事过失的判断、认定和归责进行了分析,最后本文认为大陆在医疗刑事过失的认定和归责上具相当的合理性,而台湾对医疗刑事过失的处罚过于严苛,医疗刑事犯罪率高,不利于缓解医患矛盾,促进医学科学发展。
[Abstract]:With the deepening of medical reform and the improvement of the construction of a country ruled by law, people's legal awareness has been constantly improved, and there is a higher demand for medical quality. However, due to the imperfect handling mechanism of medical disputes, the contradiction between doctors and patients is becoming more and more serious. Looking at the data of recent years, medical dispute cases show an increasing trend every year, causing great pressure on medical institutions, patients, courts, mediation agencies and health departments. The two sides of the Taiwan Strait have the same origin, have the same historical background and cultural heritage. In recent years, the two sides of the Taiwan Strait have continuously promoted economic exchanges and cultural exchanges, and even more let us and I realize that there are also similar problems of doctor-patient contradiction on the other side of the Strait. Although the judicial system on both sides of the Taiwan Strait is different, under the background of globalization, the two sides of the Taiwan Strait should deepen their understanding, learn from each other's weaknesses, perfect the mechanism of resolving medical disputes, ease the conflicts between doctors and patients, and promote the development of a harmonious society. Through the analysis of the current situation of medical dispute development on both sides of the Taiwan Strait, this paper compares and analyzes the core issues in the non-litigation settlement mechanism, civil settlement mechanism and criminal settlement mechanism on both sides of the Taiwan Strait. In view of the different legislative spirit and settlement methods on both sides of the Taiwan Straits, this paper puts forward some suggestions on how to solve disputes between the two sides of the Taiwan Straits. This paper is divided into four parts: the first part analyzes the causes and characteristics of medical disputes on both sides of the Taiwan Straits and the current situation of litigation and non-litigation of medical disputes on both sides of the Taiwan Strait, and clarifies the similarities and differences of medical disputes between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait. The second part analyzes the characteristics of the legal relationship between doctors and patients on both sides of the Taiwan Strait, and compares the different treatment of the legal relationship between basic doctors and patients in medical disputes between the two sides of the Taiwan Straits. The third part expounds the significance, function and characteristics of the introduction of the ADR system, further analyzes the application of the ADR system in the mainland, and compares the dilemma of the solution mode of the ADR between the mainland and Taiwan in the practical application. This paper puts forward some suggestions on the development and reform of mainland China's ADR solution model. The fourth part is based on the fact that civil law on both sides of the Taiwan Strait is influenced by Germany, Japan and other countries of civil law system, and the ways of dealing with civil medical negligence are very similar between the two sides of the Taiwan Straits. First of all, it specifically analyzes the relevant policies of handling civil litigation on both sides of the Taiwan Straits. Secondly, in view of the key issue in handling civil litigation on both sides of the Taiwan Strait-the conversion of civil burden of proof, it contrasts the different legislative spirit between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait. This paper reviews the development of burden of proof in mainland China and introduces the pluralistic burden of proof system which has been gradually established in mainland China. Although Taiwan across the Taiwan Strait has gradually developed the theory of burden of proof mitigation, it has not yet established a complete and unified burden of proof system, and the practical experience of the mainland is worthy of reference and reference for Taiwan. The fifth part analyzes the criminal litigation mode of medical disputes between the two sides of the Taiwan Straits. Firstly, the author briefly introduces the criminal concept of medical disputes on both sides of the Taiwan Straits, and then analyzes the judgment, identification and imputation of the criminal negligence of medical disputes, which is the key issue of medical criminal litigation. Finally, this paper argues that the identification and imputation of medical criminal negligence in mainland China is quite reasonable, while the punishment of medical criminal negligence in Taiwan is too severe and the criminal crime rate of medical treatment is high, which is not conducive to alleviating the contradiction between doctors and patients and promoting the development of medical science.
【学位授予单位】：江西师范大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D922.16

【参考文献】