作者ltlfox (生活太平淡也挺烦的)
看板Health
标题加大医学中心未经同意使用病患细胞案
时间Fri Jan 30 00:52:51 2004
原本想po两个美国的医疗过失判例上来,然後分析其中关於
医疗过失的认定标准,作为大家的参考,但是,因为我惯用
的法律搜寻系统找不到我学过的Case,所以,我只好从goo-
gle上找来其中一个Case的case brief,就是我们平常上课的
时候常常被老师要求写的家庭作业。
这份case brief的作者无法在网路上查到,但是好像是来自
University Casebook的出版商,网址是:
lawschool.mikeshecket.com/torts/moorevtheregentsoftheuniversityofcalifornia.htm
嗯,anyway,这份brief已经让英美法每学期都在及格边缘的
我汗颜了...
Moore v. The Regents of the University of California
Supreme Court of California, 1990.
51 Cal.3d 120, 793 P.2d 479, 271 Cal.Rptr. 146.
( Prosser, pp. 188-191 )
Facts: The plaintiff went in for treatment of leukemia. The defendant
used cells from his spleen for profit. The plaintiff sued for
a bunch of stuff including conversion of his spleen cells, lack
of informed consent, and breach of fiduciary[1] duty.
Issue: Does a physician have a duty to inform the patient of his economic
interest in a particular course of treatment?
Rule: A physician must tell the patient if he has personal interests
that may affect his professional judgment. If he fails to do so,
he may be liable for malpractice based on breach of informed consent.
Analysis: The court uses three principles:
1. An adult has the right to control his own body.
2. Consent is only effective if it is informed consent.
3. The doctor must tell you about everything that is material to your
decision to give consent.
Thus, a doctor, in getting your informed consent, must tell you about
all of his interests that may affect his judgment, or else he may be
liable for performing medical procedures without informed consent.
There is a competing interest in withholding information if giving the
information would make a patient make a bad choice. However, the court
feels that this applies only in cases where the doctor is acting solely
in the patient’s best interests. The court finds that this is not the
case here.
Conclusion: A bunch of stuff happens, but essentially the court rules that
there must be a consideration of the merits of the causes of action
for lack of informed consent and breach of fiduciary duty on the
part of the doctor who took the spleen.
--
※ 发信站: 批踢踢实业坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 61.223.95.101
※ 编辑: ltlfox 来自: 61.223.95.101 (01/30 00:55)