: 推 johnliou:所以啦,防卫性医疗将成为现代医疗的主流不是没有道理的 05/06 07:12 : → johnliou:医师的一切医疗处置必须留下迹证以证明不会对病患造成 05/06 07:13 : → johnliou:伤害或和病人病情的恶化无因果关系... 05/06 07:13 在美国不是什麽医纠都适用, 常见的案例包括 手术後不小心将异物留在病人体内 用於治疗病人的某项物质起火或爆炸 开刀时开错病人或开错部位 至於台湾? 天晓得..... : : 推 Duarte:我不太相信这位 "林教授" 的法律见解XD 他可是外科教授. 05/06 08:17 : → Duarte:不是法律学的教授 ~.~ 05/06 08:17 0rz..... 评论一件事不应该依据该员的身份地位,而是当中是否有真理存在吧 我们直接看英文 http://www.medicalmalpractice.com/Res-Ipsa-Loquitur.cfm If a patient is injured as the result of a medical procedure does not know exactly what caused his or her injury, but it is the type of injury that would not have occurred without negligence on the part of his or her health care provider(s), he or she may invoke a legal doctrine known as "res ipsa loquitur." To invoke this doctrine successfully, a plaintiff has to show that: 1. Evidence of the actual cause of the injury is not obtainable; 2. The injury is not the kind that ordinarily occurs in the absence of negligence by someone; 3. The plaintiff was not responsible for his or her own injury; 4. The defendant, or its employees or agents, had exclusive control of the instrumentality that caused the injury; and 5. The injury could not have been caused by any instrumentality other than that over which the defendant had control. Once this doctrine is successfully invoked, the burden is not on the plaintiff to show how the defendant was negligent, but on the defendant to show that he or she was not negligent. 关於上面第二点的常识,各州看法不一 我相信仇医的台湾法院应该是倾向後者 http://www.loblawyers.com/library/res-ipsa-loquitur-and- medical-malpractice-lawsuits.cfm Some states assert that where expert testimony is used, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is unnecessary and inapplicable since the matter at issue is not of common knowledge. (e.g. complex surgical procedure) Other states disagree, since the facts and procedures at issue essentially become the common knowledge of the jurors (through the use of such testimony), allowing the jurors to infer negligence. --

※ 发信站: 批踢踢实业坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 138.26.234.72