English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Items with full text/Total items : 26988/38789
Visitors : 2347617      Online Users : 29
RC Version 4.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Adv. Search
LoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://ntour.ntou.edu.tw:8080/ir/handle/987654321/41833

Title: 從病患自主原則論醫師的拒絕證言權
Doctor’s Right of Refusal to Testify-from the Aspect of the Principle of Patient Autonomy
Authors: 陳俊榕
Contributors: 國立臺灣海洋大學:海洋法律研究所
Keywords: 拒絕證言;病患自主原則;隱私權;秘密;資訊自決權
Refusal to testify;the principle of patient autonomy;the privacy right;confidential matters;right to informational self-determination
Date: 2016-10
Issue Date: 2017-03-30
Publisher: 法學叢刊
Abstract: 摘要:刑事訴訟法第 182 條規定,醫師得就其因業務所知悉有關病患之秘密而拒絕證言。依照通說的解釋,這個規定的目的在於保護醫病間的信賴關係,而在刑事追訴程序中,醫師對於病患的隱私有選擇說或不說的權利。但如果我們從醫學倫理中的病患自主原則及憲法所保障的隱私權來觀察,就可以知道,這個規定所要保護的是病患的資訊自決權。因此,這個規定並非賦予醫師在刑事追訴程序中一個說或不說的權利;相反地,在得到病患的同意之前,醫師應拒絕證言。換言之,拒絕證言是醫師的義務,而非權利。為此,我們在解釋刑事訴訟法第 182 條時,就必須做目的性限縮,將條文所稱的「得」限於經本人允許的情況。
Abstract:According to Article 182 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a doctor who because of his occupation has learned confidential matters relating to the patients may refuse to testify. Based on the prevailing view, the purpose of this provision is to protect the relationship of trust between the doctor and the patient. However, during the criminal procedure, the doctor is entitled to decide whether to disclose the confidential matters of the patient or not. However, in accordance with the principle of patient autonomy deriving from medical ethics and the privacy right protected by the constitution law, we may know the protected object of this provision is the patient’s right to informational self-determination. Hence, the purpose of this provision is not to grant discretion to the doctor in the criminal procedure. In the contrary, the doctor shall refuse to testify before the consent from the patient is obtained. In another word, refusal to testify is the obligation not the right of the doctor. For this purpose, Article 182 of the Code of Criminal Procedure shall be interpreted in accordance with the method of teleological and restrictive interpretation and “may” in this Article shall only apply when the person involved grants its consent.
Relation: 61(4), pp.83-104
URI: http://ntour.ntou.edu.tw:8080/ir/handle/987654321/41833
Appears in Collections:[海洋法律研究所] 期刊論文

Files in This Item:

File Description SizeFormat
index.html0KbHTML52View/Open


All items in NTOUR are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.

 


著作權政策宣告: 本網站之內容為國立臺灣海洋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,請合理使用本網站之內容,以尊重著作權人之權益。
網站維護: 海大圖資處 圖書系統組
DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback