Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/131125
|
| Title: | 死亡權之憲法基礎與權利界限
The Constitutional Basis and Limitation of Right to Die |
| Authors: | 李偉健
Lee, Wai-Kin |
| Contributors: | 蘇永欽
許耀明
Su, Yeong-Chin
Hsu, Yao-Ming
李偉健
Lee, Wai-Kin |
| Keywords: | 死亡權
安樂死
協助自殺
拒絕醫療權
病人自主權
憲法基礎
病人自主權利法
安寧緩和醫療條例
Right to Die
Euthanasia
Assisted Suicide
Right to Refuse Treatment
Patient Right to Autonomy
Constitutional Basis
Patient Right to Autonomy Act
Hospice Palliative Care Act |
| Date: | 2020 |
| Issue Date: | 2020-08-03 18:00:47 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 早期《安寧緩和醫療條例》之權利主體僅限於末期病人，後來《病人自主權利法》亦僅稍作放寬，這意味著很多未達條件但有求死意願的病人未能依法結束生命。有經濟能力者尚能出國自殺旅遊，反之則只能在國內等待死亡。
本文將死亡權定位為憲法權利，冀從現行憲法框架中尋找其權利基礎。繼而討論實踐死亡權之界限，並參考美國、瑞士、德國、加拿大、印度、英國、荷蘭及比利時，共八個國家的安樂死制度。最後嘗試將各國法制層級化以便比較，並建立一套適切的安樂死法制。
The “Hospice Palliative Care Act” is specifically stipulated to respect only the terminal illness patients’ will on the medical treatment. Even though “Patient Right to Autonomy Act” has been enforced in 2019, considerable amount patients are ineligible to seek for relief through euthanasia or assisted suicide. While the wealthy could select suicide tourism, the ordinary people are waiting for death in pain with no alternative.
The purpose of this paper is to locate a constitutional right to death, and discover the constitutional basis and limitation of Right to die. This research refers to the norms related to euthanasia of United States, Switzerland, Germany, Canada, India, United Kingdom, Netherlands and Belgium. Comparison and contraction of the norms from various countries to determine a hierarchical comparison model and frame a suitable euthanasia act for Taiwan. |
| Reference: | 中文文獻
書籍
Dworkin, Ronald，郭貞伶、陳雅汝譯（2002），生命的自主權，初版，臺北：商周。
李惠宗（2015），憲法要義，7版，臺北：元照。
李震山（2005），多元、寬容與人權保障——以憲法未列舉權之保障為中心，初版，臺北：元照。
李震山（2011），人性尊嚴與人權保障，4版，臺北：元照。
約翰‧彌爾著，郭志嵩譯（2004），論自由，初版，臺北︰臉譜。
紀欣（2003），生死一線間，初版，臺北：商周。
馬丁‧海德格著，王慶節、陳嘉閔譯（1993），存在與時間，初版，臺北︰桂冠。
陳和君（2016），權力視角下之自殺、加工自殺罪與安樂死，初版，臺北：元照。
陳浩文、區結成（2019），如何走下去—倫理與醫療，初版，香港︰香港城市大學。
陳新民（2008），憲法導論，6版，頁136-137，臺北：新學林。
陳慈陽（2007），基本權核心理論之實證化及其難題，2版，臺北：翰蘆。
許育典（2016），憲法，7版，臺北：元照。
許慶雄（2015），人權之基本原理，初版，臺北︰秀威資訊。
蕭文生（2011），國家．基本人權．政府組織，初版，臺北︰五南。
專書論文
Starck, Christian，李建良譯（2006），基本權利之保護義務，收於︰法學、憲法法院審判權與基本權利，頁411-452，臺北：元照。
Starck, Christian，許宗力譯（2006），基本權利的解釋與影響作用，收於︰法學、憲法法院審判權與基本權利，頁311-316，臺北：元照。
Starck, Christian，陳英鈐譯（2006），生物學與生殖醫學的憲法界限，收於︰法學、憲法法院審判權與基本權利，頁497-516，臺北：元照。
李孝涕（2018），從正義二原則論婦女參政保障名額合憲性收於︰台灣憲法學會編，國家‧憲法‧人權——許慶雄教授七秩華誕祝壽論文集，頁241-275，臺北︰秀威資訊。
周宗憲（2018），死刑合憲性與憲法通識課程，收於︰台灣憲法學會編，國家‧憲法‧人權——許慶雄教授七秩華誕祝壽論文集，頁97-111，臺北︰秀威資訊。
程明修（2009），憲法保障之制度與基本權之制度性保障—兼論基本權客觀內涵之主觀化，收於︰廖福特編，憲法解釋之理論與實務第六輯上冊，頁 327-363，臺北︰中央研究院法律學研究所。
蘇永欽（2006），人民的權利與義務，收於︰楊日青編，中華民國憲法要義，頁73-199，臺北︰五南。
期刊論文
方俊凱、 畢世萱、 張詩吟、陳紹基、 邱世哲（2018），某醫院各院區醫療人員對病人自主權利法之意見調查，安寧療護雜誌，第23卷1期，頁1-17。
王志嘉、羅慶徽（2010），病人生命身體法益的處分——兼論死亡協助與刑事責任，安寧療護雜誌，15卷1期，頁63-80。
李震山（1999），從生命權與自決權之關係論生前預囑與安寧照護之法律問題，中正大學法學集刊，2期，頁325-350。
林谷燕（1997），安樂死、尊嚴死在台灣，弘光醫專學報，29期，頁405-416。
孫效智（2012），安寧緩和醫療條例中的末期病患與病人自主權，政治與社會哲學評論，41期，頁45-91。
張婷（2014），生命權與病人自主權之衡平—以「安寧緩和醫療條例」為例，嶺東財經法學，第7期，頁41-60。
張婷（2018），臺灣「病人自主權利法」施行前夕－論病人自主之實踐與挑戰，嶺東財經法學，11期，頁222-250。
許澤天（2016），消極死亡協助與病人自主決定權－德國學說、立法與實務的相互影響，臺北大學法學論叢，第100期，頁179-243。
陳殷正、劉郁孚、蔡蕙珊、林玉書、范建得（2016），安寧緩和醫療條例回顧與探討，醫學與健康期刊，第5卷第1期，頁25-34。
陳鋕雄（2018），尊嚴死的權利︰論病人自主權利法，東海大學法學研究，第55期，頁1-36。
曾旭弘、杜明勳（2003），雙重效應原則的探討，基層醫學，18卷3期，頁76-79。
楊秀儀（2004），救到死為止？從國際間安樂死爭議之發展評析台灣「安寧緩和醫療條例」，臺大法學論叢，第33卷第3期，頁1-43。
楊秀儀（2017），追求善終的自主︰論病人自主權利法之法律性質與定位，萬國法律，212期，頁11-19。
劉士煒（2018），從病人自主權論積極安樂死，臨床醫學，第82卷第5期，頁681-687。
蔡甫昌、郭蕙心（2017年），病人自主權利法之倫理觀點與實務挑戰，台灣醫學，21卷1期，頁62-72。
蔡麗雲、李英芬、劉景萍、賴允亮、張澤芸、杜金錠（2003），實施「安寧緩和醫療條例教育訓練方案」成效之初探，安寧療護雜誌，第8卷第4期，頁384-380。
鄭逸哲（2018），醫師維生設備撤除行為之阻卻違法事由——由「善終權」概念於刑法的置入，法令月刊，第69卷第5期，頁38-58。
謝碩駿（2018），憲法概括性權利保障條款之解釋──德國法的觀察，月旦法學雜誌，第273期，頁47-71。
鄺承華（1998），澳大利亞安樂死法律之探討 ─ 病患「權利」之行使？醫療行為之規範？，國立臺灣大學法學論叢，27卷4期，頁293-332。
英文文獻
書籍
Beauchamp, Tom, and James Childress, (2013). Principles of Biomedical Ethics, New York: Oxford.
Cholbi, Michael J., (2017). Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide: Global Views on Choosing to End Life, California: Praeger.
Meisel, Alan, and Kathy L. Cerminara, (2004). The right to die : the law of end-of-life decisionmaking, New York: Wolters Kluwer.
Scherer, Jennifer M., and Rita J. Simon, (1999). Euthanasia and the Right to Die: A Comparative View, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield.
Somerville, Margaret, (2014). Death Talk: The Case Against Euthanasia and Physician-assisted Suicide, Montreal: McGill-Queen`s University.
Sumner, Leonard Wayne, (2011). Assisted Death: A Study in Ethics and Law, New York: Oxford.
Talone, Patricia A., (1996). Feeding the Dying: Religion and End-of-Life Decisions, New York: Peter Lang.
專書論文
Berghe, Paul Vanden, Arsène Mullie, Marc Desmet and Gert Huysmans, (2017). Assisted dying – the current situation in Flanders: euthanasia embedded in palliative care, New York: Euthanasia and assisted suicide: lessons from Belgium, 67-85.
Montero, Etienne, (2017). The Belgian Experience of Euthanasia Since Its Legal Implementation in 2002, New York: Euthanasia and assisted suicide: lessons from Belgium, 26-48.
Nys, Herman, (2017). A Discussion of the Legal Rules on Euthanasia in Belgium Briefly Compared with the Rules in Luxembourg and the Netherlands, New York: Euthanasia and assisted suicide: lessons from Belgium, 7-25.
Sulmasy, Daniel P., (2017). Ethics and the Psychiatric Dimensions of Physician-Assisted Suicide: A View from the United States, New York: Euthanasia and assisted suicide: lessons from Belgium, 49-66.
期刊論文
Achilles, Darin, (2011). Examining the Groningen Protocol: Comparing the Treatment of Terminally-Ill Infants in the Netherlands with Treatment Given in the United States and England, Wisconsin International Law Journal, 28, 795.
Busscher, David, (2015). Linking Assisted Suicide and Abortion: Life, Death, and Choice, Elder Law Journal, 23, 123.
Cohen-Almagor, Raphael, (2003). Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide in The Democratic World: A Legal Overview, New York International Law Review, 16, 1.
Critser, Rebecca, (2017). Assisted Suicide: Is the Cruzan “Unqualified State Interest in the Preservation of Human Life” a Legitimate State Interest?, NAELA Journal, 13, 71.
Ebbott, Kristina, (2010). A "Good Death" Defined by Law: Comparing the Legality of Aid-In-Dying around the World, William Mitchell Law Review, 37, 170.
Feldman, Zachary A., (2019). Suicide and Euthanasia: The International Perspective on the Right to Die, Cornell Law Review, 104, 715.
Fenigsen, Richard, (2012). Other people`s lives: reflections on medicine, ethics, and euthanasia, Issues in Law and Medicine, 28, 71.
Gorsuch, Neil M., (2000). The right to assisted suicide and euthanasia, Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 23, 599.
Hansen, Adam D., (2014). Arizona`s Slayer Statute: The Killer of Testator Intent, Arizona Summit Law Review, 7, 755.
Harvard Law Review Association, (1997). Physician-assisted suicide, Harvard Law Review, 111, 237.
Hoffman, Stephen, (2013). Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide: A Comparison of E.U. And U.S. Law, Syracuse Law Review, 63, 383.
Keown, John, (2014). A Right to Voluntary Euthanasia? Confusion in Canada in Carter, The Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics and Public Policy, 28, 1.
Keown, John, (2018). "Voluntary assisted dying" in Australia: the Victorian parliamentary committee`s tenuous case for legalization, Issues in Law and Medicine, 33, 55.
Luzon, Golan, (2019). The Practice of Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide Meets the Concept of Legalization, Criminal Law and Philosophy, 13, 329.
Murphy, Sean, (2017). Legalization of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia: Foundational Issues and Implications, BYU Journal of Public Law, 31, 333.
Orentlicher, David, (1998). Symposium: Is America`s Health Care System in Mortal Peril?, University of Illinois Law Review, 13, 837.
Orentlicher, David, (2013). Deactivating Implanted Cardiac Devices: Euthanasia or the Withdrawal of Treatment, William Mitchell Law Review, 39, 1287.
Parker, Frederick R., (2019). Palliative Sedation and the Louisiana Natural Death Act, Louisiana Law Review Summer, 79, 1103.
Player, Candice T., (2018). Death with Dignity and Mental Disorder, Arizona Law Review, 60, 115.
Saad, Toni C., (2017). Euthanasia in Belgium: legal, historical and political review, Issues in Law and Medicine, 32, 183.
Safyan, Alexander R., (2011). A Call for International Regulation of the Thriving "Industry" of Death Tourism, Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Review, 33, 287.
Shechtman, Benjamin L., (2010). Freedom and Compassion for All: The Physically Incapacitated Have a Human Right to Assisted Death, Temple International and Comparative Law Journal, 24, 507.
Shibata, Benjamin, (2017). An Ethical Analysis of Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide: Rejecting Euthanasia and Accepting Physician Assisted Suicide with Palliative Care, Journal of Legal Medicine, 37, 155.
Somerville, Margaret, (2016). Is Legalizing Euthanasia an Evolution or Revolution in Societal Values?, Quinnipiac Law Review, 34, 747.
Somerville, Margaret, (2017). Lessons from Canada in the Battles about Legalizing Euthanasia: From Kindness to Killing, Ave Maria Law Review, 15, 25.
Thyden, Amanda M., (2017). Death with Dignity and Assistance: A Critique of the Self-Administration Requirement in California`s End of Life Option Act, Chapman Law Review, 20, 421.
Weiss, Michael, (2014). Illinois Death with Dignity Act: A Case for Legislating Physician Assisted Suicide and Active Euthanasia, Annals of Health Law Advance Directive, 23, 13.
White, Ben and Jocelyn Downie, (2012). Prosecutorial Guidelines for Voluntary Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide: Autonomy, Public Confidence and High Quality Decision-Making, Melbourne University Law Review, 36, 656.
White, Christina, (2015). Physician Aid-in-Dying, Houston Law Review, 53, 595.
先期電子出版文章
Zannoni, Diego, (in press). Right or Duty to Live? Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide from the Perspective of the European Convention on Human Rights, European Journal of Legal Studies. https://ejls.eui.eu/wp-content/uploads/sites/32/2020/06/Zannoni-FINAL-ONLINE-FIRST.pdf |
| Description: | 碩士
國立政治大學
法律學系
105651066 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G1056510661 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| DOI: | 10.6814/NCCU202000878 |
| Appears in Collections: | [法律學系] 學位論文
|
Files in This Item:
| File |
Description |
Size | Format | |
|---|
| 066101.pdf | | 1612Kb | Adobe PDF2 | 701 | View/Open |
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
