政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/148575
English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  Items with full text/Total items : 113648/144635 (79%)
Visitors : 51693196      Online Users : 568
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
    •  Adv. Search
    Home ‧ Login ‧ Upload ‧ Help ‧ About ‧ Administer Goto mobile version


    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/148575


    Title: 論醫療法制區分一般與特殊拒絕治療權之必要性
    The Necessity of Differentiating the Ordinary and Extraordinary Right of Refusing Treatment in Medical Law
    Authors: 孫效智
    Sun, Johannes Hsiao-Chih
    Contributors: 政大法學評論
    Keywords: 一般拒絕治療權;特殊拒絕治療權;病人自主;維生醫療;直接死亡階段;不可逆轉的死亡流程;末期
    Ordinary Right of Refusing Treatment;Extraordinary Right of Refusing Treatment;Patient Autonomy;Life-Sustaining Treatment;Immediate Stage of Dying;Irreversible Fatal Course;Terminally Ill
    Date: 2023-09
    Issue Date: 2023-12-05 09:21:22 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 我國安寧緩和醫療條例與病人自主權利法允許病人在特定條件下拒絕涉及生死的醫療干預。本文認為此一權利為特殊拒絕治療權，與不涉及生死的一般拒絕治療權有所區別，並主張此兩種權利應予以不同之規範。楊秀儀稱這種作法為「區別說」。他認為，任何心智健全的成年病人都可無條件地拒絕任何醫療措施，區別說既不必要，也不可行。
    本文第壹部分先說明本文問題意識與文章結構。第貳部分則探討拒絕治療權的性質，下分兩節，第一節先說明楊秀儀的自主標準及其主張，第二節則對其觀點進行評論。第參部分探討區別說之可行性與必要性，下亦分兩節，第一節指出「區別說」具可行性；第二節則指出，區別一般拒絕治療權與特殊拒絕治療權並予以不同規範有其必要。第肆部分為全文總結。
    The Hospice Palliative Care Act and the Patient Right to Autonomy Act in Taiwan entitle patients the right to refuse life-sustaining treatments under certain conditions. Referring to this right as the“extraordinary right of refusing treatment,”Hsiao-Chih Sun differentiates it from the“ordinary right of refusing treatment,”which does not cover life-and-death situations and argues that these rights should be regulated differently. However, Hsiu-I Yang has published several papers opposing this view and calling it“the differentiation theory.”Yang argues that any adult patient of sound mind can unconditionally refuse any medical treatment, including life-sustaining treatment (Claim A), and that the patient’s right to refuse treatment is not limited by the stage and kind of disease (Claim B). On these grounds, she maintains that the differentiation theory is unnecessary and, judging from the accounts of some clinical cases, even questionable in its plausibility.
    In response to Yang’s arguments, this paper discusses the differentiation theory in four parts. The first part introduces the controversial issues and structure of this paper. The second part examines the nature of the right to refuse treatment. This part is further divided into two sections. The first section explains Yang’s views on the criteria of patient autonomy and her two claims (A & B). The second section comments on these views and develops this paper’s standpoint about the nature of the right to refuse treatment. The plausibility and necessity of the differentiation theory are explored in the third part, which is again divided into two sections. The first one contends that in the Jehovah’s Witness case cited by Yang, the differentiation theory has no issue of ambiguity and is, therefore, plausible. It is then in the second section pointed out that the ordinary right of refusing treatment and its counterpart, the extraordinary one, involve different basic rights protection and conflict, and accordingly that the differentiation theory is necessary both in terms of the criteria of patient autonomy on the subjective side and the stage and kind of diseases on the objective side. The fourth part is the concluding remark.
    Relation: 政大法學評論, 174, 1-79
    Data Type: article
    DOI link: https://dx.doi.org/10.53106/102398202023090174001
    DOI: 10.53106/102398202023090174001
    Appears in Collections:[Chengchi law review ] Journal Articles

    Files in This Item:

    File SizeFormat
    174-1.pdf2549KbAdobe PDF149View/Open


    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告 Copyright Announcement
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏，無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用，惟仍請適度，合理使用本網站之內容，以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用，則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    The digital content of this website is part of National Chengchi University Institutional Repository. It provides free access to academic research and public education for non-commercial use. Please utilize it in a proper and reasonable manner and respect the rights of copyright owners. For commercial use, please obtain authorization from the copyright owner in advance.

    2.本網站之製作，已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益，如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者，請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw)，維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    NCCU Institutional Repository is made to protect the interests of copyright owners. If you believe that any material on the website infringes copyright, please contact our staff(nccur@nccu.edu.tw). We will remove the work from the repository and investigate your claim.
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback