承擔抑或抗辯：醫者醫療刑事責任在民初之轉變

To Accept or Contest: The Transformation of Criminal Liability for Medical Practitioners in the Early Years of the R.O.C. (1912-1949)

辛亥革命（1911）後，中國政體由帝制改為民主共和，法律規範方式亦隨之變動，由諸法合體到六法分離，繼受自近代歐陸法系國家之刑法理念逐漸導入傳統中國社會中，醫療刑事規範因此日趨嚴密。民初醫療刑事規範除轉換清刑律中「庸醫殺人」為「業務過失致人於死」、「業務過失傷害」外，更添增「墮胎罪」、「偽造文書印文罪」、「妨害秘密罪」等。醫療事件涉及之法律責任雖可區分為刑事、民事及行政上之責任，然而進入訴訟程序之醫病糾紛常以刑事爭議為主，因此，本文嘗試從醫者角度出發，以醫療刑事責任為研究核心，分析民初醫療刑法條文之重要內容、變遷歷程，探究在司法實踐過程中，刑法條文與實際案件之適用狀況，從法律層面了解當時醫療刑事責任之認定方法及判斷標準，進而發現當時困擾醫者的並非刑法中業務過失概念之模糊，而是證據與待證事實間評價的不確定性。 After the revolution in 1911, the Chinese political system had changed from a monarchy to a democratic republic. Hence, legal norms also changed, from an integration of all laws to a separation of laws into six types. The concept of criminal law, derived from modern civil law countries, had gradually been established in traditional Chinese society. As a result, the criminal norms on medical treatments had become more and more complete. In the process of revising criminal norms from the Qing dynasty to the early years of R.O.C., ''quake physician homicide'' turned into ''homicide from malpractice of medical treatment'' and ''bodily harm by malperformance of practice.'' In addition, ''the offence of abortion'' , ''offence of forging instrument and seal'' , ''offence against privacy'' and others were added. Although the legal liability involved in medical affairs can be divided into criminal, civil and administrative responsibilities, the disputes between the physician and patients often centered on criminal issues. This article focuses on the laws surrounding criminal liability in medical treatment in the early years of the R.OC. from the perspective of medical practitioners. This study also explores the application of criminal law provisions and actual cases in judicial practice, as well as how the methods and standards of medical criminal liability were determined within the contemporary legal system. The research results show that the practitioners were plagued with uncertainty regarding evidence and the facts to be proved rather than by the ambiguity of the concept of business negligence in criminal law.