English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Items with full text/Total items : 88295/117812 (75%)
Visitors : 23406072      Online Users : 142
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
  • Adv. Search
    HomeLoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister Goto mobile version
    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/55047


    Title: 兒童醫療自主之探討-以病童臨床經驗出發
    Patient autonomy of children - from the clinical experiences on pediatric patients
    Authors: 張濱璿
    Chang, Pin Hsuan
    Contributors: 楊秀儀
    廖元豪

    Yang, Hsiu I
    Liao, Yuan Hao

    張濱璿
    Chang, Pin Hsuan
    Keywords: 告知後同意
    兒童
    病患自主
    醫療自主
    代理決定
    決定能力
    最佳利益
    臨終決定
    移除維生系統
    生活品質
    informed consent
    children
    patient autonomy
    surrogate decision
    decision making capacity
    competence
    best interest
    life-sustaining treatment
    withdrawal
    quality of life
    Date: 2011
    Issue Date: 2012-10-30 15:22:49 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 因為醫病互動關係的改變,病患自主權在經過歐美數十年來的覺醒與詮釋,並定位於不論是人性尊嚴或是隱私權內涵中之憲法層級,以及在告知後同意於近二十年來引進國內並蓬勃發展之後,病患的自主決定權在現今醫療過程中已經受到相當的重視。青少年也因接近成人的年齡及成熟度,在法律及臨床實務上也逐漸肯認其對於自身的醫療決定擁有自主決定權。然而,兒童不論在法律或是社會觀念之中,均被認定為能力尚未成熟,傳統上認為必須由父母代替其做醫療決定。可是在作者身為一位臨床兒科醫師的臨床實務經驗當中,許多病童往往能表達自己對於醫療決定甚至是臨終決定的自主意見,卻不受到父母或其他成年代理人的採納。
    因此,本文將從臨床經驗出發,將所發現許多兒童有能力決定、以及父母無法做出符合兒童利益決定的案例,提出作為本文探討的思考起源。本文主要鎖定未成年人中未滿12歲的兒童進行討論,排除許多文獻早已熱烈討論的青少年人;另外因為立法例上並未賦予未成年人擁有「自主權」,故本文暫不深究兒童法律上的自主權利,而是以探討兒童實質上的「自主性」作為探討的主軸,並以此為未來法律發展的基礎。
    本文將首先從「醫病關係的演進」開始,探討一般性「病患自主決定權」之倫理與法律。醫學倫理上涉及包括「生物醫學倫理四原則」以及「告知後同意」;多數國家也將「自主決定權」在法律上定位為憲法層級之人權保障。聯合國兒童權利公約則為現今國際上兒童人權維護的重要指引,也是對於兒童一般自主權正當性的重要依據。至於兒童的自主決定與其決定能力相關,也涉及父母代理決定的討論,故從法律上對於父母子女關係及未成年人保護的討論出發,探討代理決定時的最佳利益判斷,思考兒童醫療決定的問題及衝突,以及在不同年齡適合該年齡得以決定的事項。
    在兒童醫療決定上,難題包括為何要重視兒童自主、何人有權決定、如何決定等等,在此議題受到各國重視並不斷發展之下應如何運作。在本文中主要參考了美國以及英國的發展經驗以及建議,提出對於臨床操作的看法。本文認為,可以用兒童醫療「表意權」的行使作為對兒童自主性的肯認,從兒童決定能力的判斷開始,對於具有決定能力的兒童表達其合理意見應充分尊重;若是缺乏決定能力的兒童,則在考量其最佳利益後由父母代理其做出醫療決定。醫療人員基於必須對於病童負責的角色及責任,亦應檢視父母決定是否合理,適時地介入決定以維護兒童最佳利益。
    至於在兒童的最佳利益的判斷上,除了要考慮所面對的病況以外,還需要針對兒童未來生理發育和心智發展的影響,整體考量其未來的生活品質;對於臨終的兒童,則應考量是否得到有尊嚴的死亡,此與成年人的思考並無相左。最後,本文將進一步探討較為特殊的臨床狀況,包括面對重症以及急症的病童應如何操作及思考,並重新檢視本文所提出之實際臨床困難案例,建議較為適合的做法,以作為更多臨床個案判斷的參考指引。
    Patients' awareness of self-determination has raised and their rights have been taken into account in clinical consideration because of the change of doctor-patient relationship in recent decades. The right to autonomy was highly positioned at the constitutional level no matter it is contained in the concept of human dignity or the right of privacy. It is also highly valued after “the doctrine of informed consent” was introduced into our country with vigorous development in recent years.
    Because adolescents’ age and maturity approach adults, they have been recognized to have sufficient ability and right to make their own medical decisions as well as adults. Children, in the general idea of the society, are concerned not to have sufficient decision making ability and therefore need their parents’ help to make their own medical decisions. However, from clinical experiences, many children could not only express their autonomous opinions but even have the ability to consent to their medical treatments, including life-saving treatments. Unfortunately, children’s opinions were usually ignored, and sometimes their parents could not make decisions in their best interest.
    This study will discuss the patient autonomy of children whose ages are under 12 years old. We acknowledge that children do not have legal “right” to autonomy but they still have their own autonomous expression. The ethical and legal bases of patient autonomy are firstly illustrated, including “the four principles approach to bioethics”, “the doctrine of informed consent”, the legal status of “the right to autonomy” at the constitutional level, and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child which is an international guide to children’s human right.
    Children’s autonomy is closely related to their decision-making capacity or competence and their age. Furthermore, surrogate decision making plays an important role in children’s affairs. When there is a conflict between the parents and children, the principle of best interest of children should be the leading concern.
    Regarding the medical decision of children, difficult problems are: why children’s patient autonomy is vital, who has the right to decide, and how to make a decision. I have reviewed the experiences and suggestions from concept leading countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom. I proposed my own viewpoint and suggest some guidelines on the clinical decision process. My opinion is that children’s right to express should be taken as the confirmation of children’s autonomy. For the children with decision making capacity, we should fully respect his rational decision; for the children without it, parents could make the decisions according to the children’s best interest. Medical staffs, including doctors and nurses, also need to reexamine the parents’ decisions suitable for children’s best interest. At the end of the thesis, I re-examine the clinical cases proposed at the beginning of this thesis, to present my resolution to the cases as guides for future clinical situation.
    Reference: 一、英文部分

    (一) 英文期刊論文:

    1. Alderson P, Everyday and Medical Life Choices: Decision-Making Among 8- to 15-Year-Old School Students, 18 Child: Care, Health and Development 81-85 (1992)
    2. Alderson P, European Charter of Children’s Rights, 10 Bull Med Ethics 13-15 (1993)
    3. Alicia Ouellette, Shaping parental authority over children’s bodies, 85 Ind. L.J. 955 (2010)
    4. American Academy of Pediatrics, Task Force on Pediatric Research, Informed Consent, and Medical Ethics. Consent, 57 Pediatrics 414-416 (1976)
    5. American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on Pediatric Emergency Medicine, Consent for Emergency Medical Services for Children and Adolescents, 92 Pediatrics 290-291 (1993)
    6. American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on Bioethics, Guildlines on Forgoing Life-Sustaining Medical Treatment, 93 Pediatrics 532-537 (1994)
    7. American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on Bioethics, Informed Consent, Parental Permission, and Assent in Pediatric Practice, 95 Pediatrics 314-317 (1995)
    8. American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on Pediatric Emergency Medicine, Policy Statement: Consent for Emergency Medical Services for Children and Adolescents, 111 Pediatrics 703-706 (2003)
    9. American Academy of Pediatrics, AAP Publications Retired or Reaffirmed, October 2006, 119 Pediatrics 405 (2007)
    10. Anne Morris, Selective treatment of irreversibly impaired infants: Decision- making at the threshold, 17 Med. L. Rev. 347 (2009)
    11. Anthony Perera, Can I decide please? The state of children’s consent in the UK, 15 European Journal of Health Law 411-420 (2008)
    12. Anthony W. Austin, Medical decisions and children: How much voice should children have in their medical care? 49 Ariz. L Rev. 143 (2007)
    13. Arnold J. Rosoff, Health Law at Fifty Years: A Look Back, 14 Health Matrix 197 (2004)
    14. Barry R Furrow, From the doctor to the system: the new demands of health law, 14 Health Matrix 67 (2004)
    15. Benedict C. Nwomeh, et al., Informed Consent for Emergency Surgery in Infants and Children, 40 J Pediatr Surgery 1320-1325 (2005)
    16. Bruce C. Hafen, Jonathan O. Hafen, Abandoning children to their autonomy: The United Nations convention on the right of the child, 37 Harv. Int'l L.J. 449 (1996)
    17. Caniano DA, Ethical Issues in the Management of Neonatal Surgical Anomalies, 28 Semin Perinatol 240-245 (2004)
    18. Christine A. Zawistowski, Ethical Problems in Pediatric Critical Care: Consent, 31 Crit Care Med S407-S410 (2003)
    19. Dawes PJD, Davison P, Informed Consent: What do Patients Want to Know? 87 J R Soc Med 149-152 (1994)
    20. Derry Ridgway, Court-Mediated Disputes Between Physicians and Families Over the Medical Care of Children, 158 Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 891-896 (2004)
    21. Devereux JA, Jones DPH, Dickenson DL, Can Children Withhold Consent to Treatment? 307 Br Med J. 1459-1461 (1993)
    22. Devictor DJ, Nguyen DT, Forgoing Life-Sustaining Treatments in Children: A Comparison Between Northern and Southern European Pediatric Intensive Care Units, 5 Pediatr Crit Care Med 211-215 (2004)
    23. Douglas S. Diekema, Taking Children Seriously: What’s so Important About Assent? 3 Am J bioethics 25-26 (2003)
    24. Emanuel EJ, Emanuel LL, Proxy Decision-Making for Incompetent Patients: An Ethical and Empirical Analysis, 267 JAMA 2067-71 (1992)
    25. Geary DF, Attitudes of Pediatric Nephrologist to Management of End-Stage Renal Disease in Infants, 133 J Pediatr 154(1998)
    26. Gillon R, Medical Ethics: Four Principles Plus Attention to Scope, 309 British Medical Journal 184-188 (1994)
    27. Heather Boonstra, Elizabeth Nash, Minors and Right to Consent to Health Care, The Guttmacher Report on Public Policy 4 (2000)
    28. Isolina Riano, et al., Toward Guideline for Dialysis in Children with End-Stage Renal Disease, 15 Pediatr Nephrol 157-162 (2000)
    29. Jaakola RO, Slaighter V, Children’s Body Knowledge: Understanding “Life” as a Biological Goal, 20 Br J Dev Psychol 325-342 (2002)
    30. Jacqueline Lowden, Children’s Rights: A Decade of Dispute, 37 J of Advanced Nursing 100-107 (2002)
    31. Joanne Whitty-Rogers, et al., Working With Children in End-Life Decision Making, 16 Nursing Ethics 743-758 (2009)
    32. K. Jane Lee, et al., Assent for Treatment: Clinician Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practice, 118 Pediatrics 723-730 (2006)
    33. Karen Street, et al., The Decision Making Process Regarding the Withdrawal or Withholding of Potential Life-Saving Treatments in a Children's Hospital, 26 J Med Ethics 346-352 (2000)
    34. Kei Robert Hirasawa, Are parents acting in the best interests of their children when they make medical decisions based on their religious beliefs? 44 Fam. Ct. Rev. 316 (2006)
    35. King NMP, Cross AW, Children as Decision Makers: Guideline for Pediatricians, 115 J Pediatr 10-16 (1989)
    36. Lawrence Schlam, Joseph P. Wood, Informed consent to the medical treatment of minors: Law and practice, 10 Health Matrix 141 (2000)
    37. Mark J. Cherry, Parental Authority and Pediatric Bioethical Decision Making, 35 J Med Philos 553-572 (2010)
    38. Nancy M.P. King, Alan W. Cross, Children as Decision Makers: Guidelines for Pediatricians, 115 J Pediatr 10-16 (1989)

    39. Parul Bhagvan Patel, et al., Adequacy of Informed Consent for Lumbar Puncture in a Pediatric Emergency Department, 26 Pediatr Emer Care 739-741 (2010)
    40. Rand E. Rosenblatt, The Four Ages of Health Law, 14 Health Matrix 155 (2004)
    41. Rosario Baxter, et al., The Legal and Ethical Status of Children in Health Care in the UK, 5 Nursing Ethics 189-198 (1998)
    42. Shield JPH, Baum JD, Children’s Consent to Treatment: Listen to the Children – They Will Have to Live With the Decision, 308 Br Med J 1182-1183 (1994)
    43. Southall D, et al., Invasive Procedure in Children Receiving Intensive Care, 306 Brit Med J 1512-1513 (1993)
    44. Suzanne Manning, Finding a Direction for Pediatric Assent, 150 J Pediatr e38 (2007)
    45. TL Zutlevics, PH Henning, Obligation of Clinicians to Treat Unwilling Children and Young People: and Ethical Discussion, 41 J Paediatr Child Health 677-681 (2005)
    46. Treloar DJ, et al., Use of Emergency Service by Unaccompanied Minors, 20 Ann Emerg Med 297-301 (1991)
    47. Wallace J. Mlyniec, A judge’s ethical dilemma: Assessing a child’s capacity to choose, 64 Fordham L. Rev. 1873 (1996)

    (二) 英文專書:

    1. Allen E. Buchanan and Dan W. Brock. Deciding for others: the ethics of surrogate decision making. Cambridge; New York : Cambridge University Press, 1989
    2. General Medical Council, 0-18 Years: Guidance for All Doctors, UK, 2007
    3. Jurrit Bergsma and David C. Thomasma. Autonomy and clinical medicine: renewing the health professional relation with the patient. Dordrecht, The Netherlands; Boston, Mass.: Kluwer Academic, c2000
    4. Kathleen Alaimo and Brian Klug, eds. Children as equals: exploring the rights of the child. Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, c2002
    5. MacDonald MG, Ginzberg HM, eds. Guidelines for Air and Ground Transport of Neonatal and Pediatric Patients. Elk Grove Village, IL: American Academy of Pediatrics (2nd ed. 1999)
    6. Michael Freeman and Philip Veerman, eds. The Ideologies on children's rights. Dordrecht; Boston: M. Nijhoff; Norwell, Mass. c1992
    7. Michael Freeman, eds. Children's health and children's rights. Leiden, The Netherlands; Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, c2006
    8. Raymond S. Edge, John Randall Groves. Ethics of health care: a guide for clinical practice. Clifton Park, N.Y.: Thomson Delmar Learning (3rd ed. 2006)
    9. Tom L. Beauchamp, James F. Childress. Principles of biomedical ethics. New York : Oxford University Press (6th ed. 2009)

    二、中文部分

    (一) 中文期刊論文:

    1. 王志嘉,論醫療上「病人自我決定權」及其刑法相關問題,東吳法研論集,第5期,2009年12月,頁53-94
    2. 王志嘉,未成年人的醫療決策與生育自主權—最高法院95年度台非字第115傲、台灣高等法院91年度上訴字第2987號刑事判決評釋,月旦法學雜誌,第181期,2010年6月,頁261-278
    3. 王志嘉,生育自主權—兼論未成年人醫療決策,台灣法學雜誌,第173期,2011年4月1日,頁45-49。
    4. 王皇玉,墮胎、同意、隱私權—以美、德法治視角檢視墮胎諮詢制度,月旦法學雜誌,第174期,2009年11月,頁162-180。
    5. 王澤鑑,人格權保護的課題與展望(三)─人格權的具體化及保護範圍(6)─隱私權(中),台灣法學雜誌,第97期,2007年8月,頁27-50。
    6. 王澤鑑,人格權保護的課題與展望(三)─人格權的具體化及保護範圍(6)─隱私權(下-1),台灣法學雜誌,第99期,2007年10月,頁47-66。
    7. 王澤鑑,人格權保護的課題與展望(五)─人格權的性質及構造:精神利益與財產利益的保護(上),台灣法學雜誌,第104期,2008年3月,頁81-96
    8. 王澤鑑,特殊侵權行為(三)--無行為能力人及限制行為能力人的侵權行為與法定代理人責任(上),台灣法學雜誌,第62期,2004年9月,頁81-97
    9. 江玉林,人性尊嚴與人格尊嚴 ─ 大法官解釋中有關尊嚴論述的分析,月旦法學教室,第20期,2004年6月,頁116-123
    10. 吳全峰、黃文鴻,論醫療人權之發展與權利體系,月旦法學雜誌,第148期,2007年9月,頁128-161
    11. 吳俊穎,壽終正寢? --病患親屬代理決定權的探討,月旦法學雜誌,第114期,2004年11月,頁155-162
    12. 吳煜宗,未成年子女的表意自由,月旦法學教室,第18期,2004年4月,頁8-9
    13. 李震山,人性尊嚴之憲法意義,中國比較法學會學報,13期,1992年,頁15-44
    14. 李震山,從生命權與自決權之關係論生前預囑與安寧照護之法律問題,收錄於李震山,「人性尊嚴與人權保障」,元照出版,2001年11月修訂再版,頁121-158
    15. 李震山,基本權各論基礎講座(1)─人性尊嚴,法學講座,第17期,2003年5月,頁1-17。
    16. 李震山,基本權各論基礎講座(6)—生命權,法學講座,第22期,2003年10月,頁1-17。
    17. 李震山,基本權各論基礎講座(9)─身體不受傷害權,法學講座,第25期,2004年1月,頁1-25。
    18. 李震山,憲法未列舉之固有權─生命、身體、尊嚴與人格,收錄於李震山,「多元、寬容與人權保障─以憲法未列舉權之保障為中心」,元照出版,二版,2007 年9 月,頁99-158
    19. 施慧玲,論我國人權法制之發展—兼談落實「聯合國兒童權利公約」之社會運動,中正法學集刊,第14期,2004年1月,頁169-204
    20. 施慧玲,子女本位的親子法,收錄於家庭、法律、社會學論文集,元照出版,2004年9月,頁205-222
    21. 施慧玲,論國家介入親權行使之法理基礎,收錄於家庭、法律、社會學論文集,元照出版,2004年9月,頁263-281

    22. 施慧玲、高玉泉,論兒童隱私權益與新聞自由,收錄於戴東雄教授七秩華誕祝壽論文集—現代身分法之基礎理論,元照出版,2007年8月,頁163-190
    23. 施慧玲,從聯合國兒童權利公約到子女最佳利益原則—兼談跨國法律資訊之應用與比較法研究。「婦女及兒童權利保障與國際法」研討會發表論文,2010年11月 27日
    24. 馬憶南,父母與未成年子女的法律關係—從父母權利本位到子女權利本位,月旦民商法,第25期,2009年9月,頁51-64
    25. 陳清秀,憲法上人性尊嚴,收錄於:現代國家與憲法-李鴻禧教授六秩華誕祝賀論文集,月旦出版,1997 年3月,頁93-122
    26. 陳聰富,病人醫療人權的實踐議題,月旦法學教室,第64期,2008年2月,頁33-47
    27. 陳聰富,拒絕醫療與告知後同意,月旦民商法雜誌,2009年3月,第23期,頁72-84
    28. 楊佳元,關於未成年人之法律行為,政大法學評論,第98期,96年8月,頁61-96
    29. 楊秀儀,誰來同意?誰做決定?從「告知後同意法則」談病人自主權的理論與實際:美國經驗之考察,台灣法學會學報,20期,1999年11月,頁367-406。
    30. 楊秀儀,寬容文化與病患自主 – 從告知後同意到告知後選擇,收錄於「多元價值、寬容與法律—亞圖‧考夫曼教授紀念集」,五南出版,2004年4月,頁99-129。
    31. 楊秀儀,美國「告知後同意」法則考察分析,月旦法學雜誌,第121期, 2005年6月,頁138-152。
    32. 楊秀儀,論病人自主權─我國法上「告知後同意」之請求權基礎探討,台大法學論叢,第36卷第2期,2007年6月,頁229-268。
    33. 楊秀儀,「知情放棄」與「空白同意」合乎自主原則嗎?論病人自主之性質,生命教育研究,第1卷第2期,2009年12月,頁97-122
    34. 廖元豪,美國憲法釋義學對我國憲法解釋之影響--正當程序、政治問題與方法論之比較,憲政時代,第30卷第1 期,2004年7月,頁1-44。
    35. 蔡甫昌、陳慶餘,從生命倫理之發展談醫學倫理教育,醫學教育,4卷2期,2000年6月,頁129-130

    36. 蔡顯鑫,身分行為的本質,收錄於戴東雄教授七秩華誕祝壽論文集—現代身分法之基礎理論,元照出版,2007年8月,頁297-330
    37. 劉宏恩,夫妻離婚後「子女最佳利益」之酌定—從英美法實務論我國民法親屬編新規定之適用」,軍法專刊,第43卷第12期,1997年12月,頁24-55。
    38. 劉幸義,由法學方法論角度思考「安樂死」之難題,月旦法學雜誌,第17期,1996年10月,頁87-93
    39. 劉靜怡,隱私權保障與國家權力的行使—以正當程序和個人自主性為核心,月旦法學教室,50期,2006年12月,頁39-49。
    40. 鄭哲民,美國墮胎權的爭議,收錄於:美國最高法院重要判例之研究(1990~1992),中央研究院歐美研究所,1995年6月,頁105-128
    41. 戴瑀如,從親屬法上之父母子女關係論未成年子女之醫療決定權,生物醫學雜誌,第3卷第4期,2010年12月,頁503-515
    42. 魏大喨,當然繼承主義之未成年人利益保護,收錄於「現代身份法之基礎理論」,元照出版,2007年8月初版一刷,頁407-421。

    (二) 中文書籍:

    1. 王澤鑑,民法總則,作者自版,2008年3月
    2. 王澤鑑,侵權行為法第一冊—一般侵權行為,作者自版,2008年3月
    3. 王澤鑑主編,英美法導論,元照出版,2010年7月初版
    4. 司法院編,美國聯邦最高法院憲法判決選譯第三輯,司法院出版,2002年11月
    5. 史慶璞著,美國憲法理論與實務,三民出版,2007年6月,初版一刷。
    6. 李園會編著,兒童權利公約,內政部兒童局,2000年初版
    7. 李震山著,人性尊嚴與人權保障,元照出版,2000年2月,初版一刷。
    8. 李震山著,多元、寬容與人權保障─以憲法未列舉權之保障為中心,元照出版,二版,2007 年9 月
    9. 法治斌、董保城著,憲法新論,原照出版,2008年9月,三版3刷
    10. 林鈺雄,新刑法總則,元照出版,2006年9月初版
    11. 陳棋炎、黃宗樂、郭振恭,民法親屬新論,三民出版,2003年9月
    12. 黃丁全著,醫療、法律與生命倫理,宏文館圖書出版,農學社發行,1998年初版
    13. 焦興鎧主編,美國最高法院重要判例之研究(1990~1992),中央研究院歐美研究所,1995年6月
    14. 鄧冰著,大法官的智慧:美國聯邦法院經典案例精選,五南出版,2005年,初版。
    15. 戴正德、李明濱編著,醫學倫理導論,教育部發行,2006年增訂一版
    16. 戴東雄教授七秩華誕祝壽論文集—現代身分法之基礎理論,元照出版,2007年8月初版一刷
    17. Jodi Picoult(茱迪‧皮考特)著,林淑娟譯,姊姊的守護者,臺灣商務出版,2006年初版
    18. John R. Williams著,世界醫師會醫學倫理手冊,世界醫師會授權,中華民國醫師公會全國聯合會出版,2005年11月初版
    19. Lisa Belkin(莉莎‧貝爾金)著,錢莉華譯,派屈克的生死抉擇,天下遠見出版,2007年11月初版。
    20. Peter A. Singer編著,蔡甫昌編譯,臨床生命倫理學,財團法人醫院評鑑暨醫療品質策進會出版,2003年9月初版。

    三、引用判決

    1. Bellotti v. Baird, 443 U.S. 622 (1979)
    2. Gillick v. West Norfolk & Wisbech AHA (1986) AC 112
    3. Glass v. United Kingdom WLR (61827/00)(2004)
    4. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965)
    5. In re E.G., 133 Ill. 2d 98, 549 N.E.2d 322 (1989)
    6. In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 29-31 (1967)
    7. In re Quinlan, 70 N.J. 10, 355A.sd 647, cert denied, 429 U.S. 922 (1976)
    8. Nancy Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dept. of Health, 497 U.S. 261 (1990)
    9. Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 US 510, 534-5(1925)
    10. Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth, 428 U.S. 52-53 (1976)
    11. Planned parenthood of southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)
    12. Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 US 158, 64Sct 438, 88Led 645 (1944)
    13. Re R (1993) 2 FLR 757
    14. Re W(1992) 3 WLR 758
    15. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)
    16. Salgo v. Leland Stanford Jr. University Board of Trustees. 317 P.2d 170 (Cal. 1957)
    17. Schloendorf v. Society of New York Hospital, 211 N.Y. 125, 105 N.E. 92 (1914)
    18. Vacco v. Quill, 521 U.S. 793 (1997);
    19. Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997)
    20. Wyatt v. Portsmouth NHS Trust (2005) EWHC 693; (2006) EWHC 319

    四、網路資料

    1. Amerian College of Surgeons, Giving your informed consent, http://www.facs.org/public_info/operation/consent.html/#srgbysrg
    2. BMA publication, 2008, Parental responsibility--Guidance from the British Medical Association, http://www.bma.org.uk/images/parentalresponsibility_tcm41-182629.pdf
    3. European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) 1950, http://www.echr.coe.int/ECHR/EN/Header/Basic+Texts/The+Convention+and+additional+protocols/The+European+Convention+on+Human+Rights/
    4. Report of Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs, American Medical Association. Treatment Decisions for Seriously Ill Newborns (1992),http://www.ama-assn.org/resources/doc/code-medical-ethics/2215a.pdf
    5. 中央健康保險局的「全民健康保險呼吸器依賴患者整合性照護前瞻性支付方式」試辦計畫http://www.nhi.gov.tw/information/bbs_detail.aspx?menu=&menu_id=&wd_id=&bulletin_ID=1269
    6. 台大醫院研究倫理委員會行政中心,http://www.ntuh.gov.tw/RECO/DocLib1/Forms/AllItems.aspx
    7. 台灣兒科醫學會住院醫師訓練課程標準,http://www.pediatr.org.tw/member/training_class.asp
    8. 聯合國兒童基金會(UNICEF)網站:http://www.unicef.org/crc/index_protecting.html
    Description: 碩士
    國立政治大學
    法律科際整合研究所
    96652004
    100
    Source URI: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0096652004
    Data Type: thesis
    Appears in Collections:[法律與科技整合研究所] 學位論文

    Files in This Item:

    File SizeFormat
    200401.pdf1261KbAdobe PDF2294View/Open


    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏,無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用,惟仍請適度,合理使用本網站之內容,以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用,則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    2.本網站之製作,已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益,如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者,請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw),維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback