法律父爱主义与专断医疗行为的正当化  

Paternalism and the Justification of Arbitrary Medical Behavior

作　　者：姚万勤[1] Yao Wanqin

机构地区：[1]西南政法大学法学院

出　　处：《比较法研究》2019年第3期157-171,共15页Journal of Comparative Law

基　　金：西南政法大学青年教师学术创新团队项目(2016XZCXTD-07);2017年重庆市社会科学规划项目(2017QNFX40)的资助

摘　　要：刑法学界对专断的医疗行为正当化的理论根据存在"伤害说"和"非伤害说"的争议,但是无论基于何种立场均未能提供重要的理论支撑。社会个体由于获取信息的局限或者能力的欠缺在某些情形下无法形成有效的决定,国家基于法律父爱主义立场赋予的强制能够避免患者进一步损害自身利益,因而具有正当性的一面。在贯彻法律父爱主义的同时需要区分强制的程度,只是在当事人面对待决事项尚未行使有效同意,国家从最大限度地维护患者最佳利益出发才能作出干预的决定。因此,在刑法教义学视域,需要区分"患者或者家属能表达意志的场合"和"患者或家属不能表达意志的场合"对医生的专断医疗行为进行具体判断。Although the Theory of criminalizing the arbitrary medical behavior in the theory of criminal law is based on the controversy over the existence of "harm hypothesis"and "non - harm hypothesis", any of them fails to provide important theoretical support no matter what stand it takes. Social individuals are unable to form effective decisions in certain circumstances because of limitations in their own information or lack of ability. Based on the stand of paternalism, the state' s mandate can prevent patients from further harming to their own interests, thus it has a legitimate aspect. It is necessary to distinguish the degree of coercion simultaneously when implement. It is only that the parties concerned have not been able to exercise effective consent in a timely manner, the state can make intervention decisions only when based on the stand of the parties in order to maintain the best interests of the patient. Therefore, in the perspective of the doctrine of criminal law, it is necessary to make specific judgments on the doctor 's arbitrary medical behavior by distinguishing different types of cases where patients or their families can express will and occasions where patients or their families can not express will.

关 键 词：父爱主义 有限理性 违法阻却 危险允许 

分 类 号：D924[政治法律—刑法学] D923[政治法律—法学]