输血感染损害责任的归责原则和求偿机制  

The Imbalance and Correction of Compensation Mechanism Caused by Blood Transfusion

作　　者：侯国跃[1] 

机构地区：[1]西南政法大学民商法学院

出　　处：《社会科学》2014年第2期91-100,共10页Journal of Social Sciences

基　　金：四川医事卫生法治研究中心资助项目"医疗侵权责任制度的解释和适用"(项目编号:YF09-Q13);中国法学会部级法学研究项目(项目编号:CLS[2011]C20)的阶段性成果

摘　　要：近年来临床输血感染致害求偿机制普受社会关注。《侵权责任法》将血液与药品、消毒药剂、医疗器械并列,并就其致害侵权设定相同的归责原则和求偿机制。但血液与血液制品不同。《药品管理法》明确将血液制品纳入药品的范畴,而血液既非药品,亦非法律意义上的产品。在法律政策上,血站和医疗机构并非营利性组织,血液流转亦非商业销售。血液致害案件应适用过错责任原则,且该过错系属客观过错,即对法定义务的违反,因而,《侵权责任法》的相关制度设计宜改弦易张。法律应平衡患方、医疗机构及血站的利益保护,不宜规定医疗机构与血站承担不真正连带责任。In recent years, the claims for clinical blood transfusion infection caused common social attention. ＇ The Tort Liability Law＇ put blood and drug, medical disinfectant and medical instrument on a par with, and set the same liability principles and compensation mechanism for their torts. But blood is different from blood products. ＇ The Drug Administration Law＇ ＇ clearly put blood products into the category of drugs, but blood is not drugs, nor the legal sense of products. In legal policy, blood stations and medical institutions are non-profit organizations, the blood flow also non-commercial sales. The cases caused by blood damage shall apply the principle of fault liability, and the fault is objective fault, because it is the violation of legal obligation. The relevant system design of ＇ The Tort Liability Law＇ should be changed. The law should be in balance with patients＇ , medical institutions＇ and blood hank＇ protection, it＇s not suitable to stipulate that medical institution and blood station assume not-true joint and several liability.

关 键 词：血液 血液制品 输血感染 药品 血站 医疗机构 过错责任 

分 类 号：D913.7[政治法律—民商法学]