醫療行為過失之認定標準

Accreditation standards for medical negligence

我國實務與通說認為應以行為人是否怠於善良管理人之注意義務論斷過失之有無。基於醫療行為之高度專業性，我國法院向來常以醫師之醫療行為是否違反「醫療常規」作為認定過失存否之依據；惟近年法院已漸有區分「醫療常規」及「醫療水準」之差異，而以概念上近似英美法「理性醫師」注意標準之「醫療水準」作為醫療過失之認定基準，然醫療水準或理性醫師注意標準仍極為抽象，有賴個案累積逐漸具體化、類型化成為醫療過失案件之判斷標準。

Practice and policy in Taiwan should be based on whether the perpetrator lacks the duty of care of the good manager to conclude the existence of the fault. Based on the high degree of professionalism of medical practice, courts in our country always rely on whether the medical practice of a doctor violates the 'medical practice' as the basis for determining negligence. However, in recent years, the courts have gradually separated the differences between medical practice and 'medical standard' The 'medical standard' of the rational physician standard of care, which is conceptually similar to that of the 'rational physician' in the Anglo-American legal system, is taken as the basis of medical malpractice. However, the standard of medical attention or rational physician attention remains extremely abstract, depending on the individualization of cases and their typological transformation into medical malpractice cases Judgment criteria.