病人為何要告醫生？以糾紛發動者為中心之法實證研究

黃鈺媖; 楊秀儀

doi:10.6199/NTULJ.2015.44.04.04

山西大学，您好！

感谢采购，人社期刊库｜人社论文库，期间：2025/01/01~2025/12/31

感谢试用，科学期刊库｜科学论文库，期间：2024/10/20~2025/01/20

浏览高级检索

关闭
检索检索高级检索出版物检索
浏览期刊主题浏览核心期刊浏览期刊拼音浏览

关闭

查询符号(半角)	查询符号意义说明
空格	表示为「AND」两个查询词之交集
双引号 ( " " )	片语以双引号标示开始及结束，而且只寻找出现顺序相同的字词，例： " image process "
?	表示一个字母切截，输入两个?表两个字母，依此类推，例：输入「Appl?」，查得结果应为appl e , appl y … ( 常用于英文字查询 )
*	表示不限字母切截，由0~n. 例：输入「appl*」，查得结果应为appl e , appl es , appl y , appl ied , appl ication … ( 常用于英文字查询 )
AND、OR、NOT	布尔逻辑组合关键字，用来扩大或缩小查询范围的技巧。 (1) AND ：缩小查询范围 (2) OR ：扩大查询范围(3) NOT：排除不相关的范围

DOI 是数位物件识别码（ D igital O bject I dentifier ）的简称，
为物件在网路上的唯一识别码，可用于永久连结并引用目标物件。

使用DOI作为永久连结

每个DOI号前面加上「 http://dx.doi.org/ 」便成为永久网址。
如以DOI号为 10.5297/ser.1201.002 的文献为例，此文献的永久连结便是： http://dx.doi.org/ 10.5297/ser.1201.002 。
日后不论出版单位如何更动此文献位置，永久连结所指向的位置皆会即时更新，不再错失重要的研究。

引用含有DOI的文献

有DOI的文献在引用时皆应同时引用DOI。若使用APA、Chicago以外未规范DOI的引用格式，可引用DOI永久连结。

DOI可强化引用精确性、增强学术圈连结，并给予使用者跨平台的良好使用经验，目前在全世界已有超过五千万个对象申请DOI。如想对DOI的使用与概念有进一步了解，请参考（）。

ACI:

数据来源：Academic Citation Index，简称ACI

台湾最大的引用文献资料库，目前收录台湾与港澳地区所出版的人文学、社会学领域学术期刊之书目资料与参考文献，总期刊量超过690种，每年定期公布收录期刊的影响指数(Impact Factor)等指标给大众，并提供专家学者与学术单位实用的计量与分析功能。

五年影响指数（5-Year Impact Factor）：某一期刊前五年所出版的文章在当年度的平均被引用次数。

公式：（前五年发表论文在统计年的被引用次数）÷（前五年论文产出论文总篇数）

例如：A期刊2017年之五年影响指数

(A期刊2012-2016年发表论文在2017年的被引总次数)/(A期刊2012-2016年发表的论文总数)

什么是预刊文章？

为提供读者最前线之学术资讯，于期刊文献获同意刊登后、纸本印制完成前，率先于网路线上发表之文章即为预刊文章。预刊文章尚未有卷期、页次及出版日期资讯，但可藉由DOI号识别。 DOI号是文献的数位身份证字号，不论预刊或正式出版皆不会改变，读者可点击DOI连结，或于DOI号前面加上「 http://dx.doi.org/ 」连结到文献目前最新版本。

如何引用预刊文章？

请使用预刊文章的线上发表日期及DOI号来引用该篇文献。

引用范例(视不同引文格式规范可能有所差异)：

作者姓名。文章篇名。期刊名称。 YYYY/MM/DD线上预先发表。

doi:DOI 号

来源数据

P1845 - 1885

社会科学 > 法律学

DOI： 10.6199/NTULJ

书目管理工具

相关连结

问题回报

全文下载

病人为何要告医生？以纠纷发动者为中心之法实证研究

Why do People Sue Doctors? An Empirical Legal Study from the Perspectives of Patients and Their Families

黄钰媖(Yu-Ying Huang) ；杨秀仪(Hsiu-I Yang)

台大法学论丛； 44 卷 4 期 (2015 / 12 / 01) ， P1845 - 1885

繁体中文 DOI： 10.6199/NTULJ.2015.44.04.04

医疗纠纷；病人态度；法实证研究；去刑化；另类纠纷解决机制； medical malpractice ； patients’ attitude ； empirical legal study ； decriminalization ； A.D.R.

1 个人觉得这篇文章赞

摘要 │ 参考文献 (54) │ 被引用文献 (6) │ 国际计量

摘要〈TOP〉

并列摘要〈TOP〉

Quite a few Taiwanese patients, or their families, have filed a malpractice lawsuit against medical providers in cases of disputes. A close examination of the total 223 district court criminal verdicts in the last decade, however, highlights a ＂3-low＂ phenomenon: low prosecution rate, low conviction rate, and low sentence serving rate, which demonstrates that criminal court alone is not a viable recourse to settling malpractice disputes. Before any policy to decriminalize medical malpractice liability is made, it is important to understand the underlying reasons why patients file criminal charges against their doctors. This research, a pioneer empirical study on patients’ experience with and attitudes towards criminal liability system, aims to discover the true needs of patients and their families in medical malpractice disputes. Based on literature reviews and analyses of the characteristics of medical disputes in Taiwan, a questionnaire was created and distributed, through personal networks, to patients and families who had been involved in such disputes. Overall, from 23 May 2012 to 30 December 2012, 184 respondents were enrolled, 174 of them having met the inclusion criteria. The findings provide four in-depth suggestions. First, among all respondents, 54% directly and personally made a claim against medical providers, which indicates that in-hospital mediation should be introduced as the first and foremost measure of alternative dispute resolutions (ADR). Second, more than half of the respondents (90, 51.7%) considered it more likely to discover the truth by appealing to prosecutors, and only 37 (21.3%) admitted that their purpose to file a criminal charge was to save money. It implies that patients or families are motivated to file criminal complaints by the desire to find out the truth instead of saving money on legal fees. Thus, a truth finding mechanism would effectively channel patients and families to civil remedy. Third, 93 of the respondents (53.5%) ascribed their legal actions to the doctors’ bad attitude, and slightly more than half (88, 50.5%) chose not to sue if physicians are honest with them about medical errors. Whether doctors have apologized for injury or medical malpractice, as the data show, would influence the decision of patients and families to file a lawsuit. Fourth, only 31 (17.8%) respondents agreed that medical professionals, in the case of malpractice, should not be held responsible for criminal liability, which suggests that advocates of decriminalization in the substantive law need to proffer more persuasive argument to support their cause. To conclude, a well-designed ADR that takes patients’ needs into account would encourage patients or their families to settle malpractice disputes without resorting to criminal law procedures in court.

参考文献 ( 54 ) 〈TOP〉

林东龙、彭武德、陈武宗(2009)。「告」与「不告」之间：台湾医疗纠纷病患及其家属之行动分析。长庚人文社会学报，2(1)，165-199。
连结：
立法院（2012）。立法院第8 届第1 会期社会福利及卫生环境委员针对「医疗法增订第82 条之1 条草案」召开「医疗疏失刑责合理化，医护病患双赢」公听会会议纪录（101 年5 月23 日）。台北：立法院。
Castillo, J. J. (2009). Snowball Sampling. Retrieved from http://www.experiment-resources.com/snowball-sampling.html
Boothman, R. C.(2006).Apologies and a strong defense at the university of michigan health system.The Physician Executive journal,32(2),7-10.
Chiu, Y. C.(2010).What Drives Patients to Sue Doctors? The Role of Cultural Factors in the Pursuit of Malpractice Claims in Taiwan.Social Science & Medicine,71(4),702-707.

被引用文献 ( 6 ) 〈TOP〉

梁志鸣(2022)。论美国诉讼外医疗纷争处理之历史发展经验：兼评我国现状之反省与展望。欧美研究，52(4)，655-725。
刘静婷,吴建昌(2023)。道歉是否能够了事？结合论理与实证观点论台湾医疗事故道歉法制之建置。台北大学法学论丛，126，1-75。
郑雅文,蔡依伦,董钰琪(2019)。从医师经验探讨医院的医疗纠纷处理制度。台湾公共卫生杂志，38(2)，178-188。
(2017)。社会科学式的比较法研究—评Mark Ramseyer. 2015. SECOND BEST JUSTICE: THEVIRTUES OF JAPANESE PRIVATE LAW. The University of Chicago Press。中研院法学期刊，20，211-249。
(2019)。寻找法学实证的图像──以医疗纠纷研究为例。医事法学，24(1＆2)，123-141。

国际计量

〈TOP〉

E-mail ：

文章公开取用时，将寄通知信至您填写的信箱地址