In the know to agree " The exceptional situation " Merit attention

In the know to agree " The exceptional situation " Merit attention
In the know to agree " The exceptional situation " Merit attention
The far thunder in the know agrees right is as the extension of right of patient's life and health, it is not absolute to use in the medical practice specifically in the high mountain. At present, laws and regulations of our country to in the know to agree exceptional situation of principle make clear regulation still, not merely result in suffering from the square one in the know and agree to intervene right and often conflict in right and medical treatment of the hospital, the ones that have also caused the administration of justice to be practised to treatment of concrete legal precedent are fuzzy with difference. I think, exist several kind in the know to agree the exceptional situation on being clinical, should merit attention. First, urgent situation handled in medical treatment. In the medical practice, often present the situation that various urgent situation must be handled in advance. Situation as the patient has unclear consciousness, and unable to obtain patient's relative or legal representative agree, when the hospital provides urgent medical rescue for patient under this kind of situation, should hold the following important documents: Have already obviously appeared, threatened the situation of patient's life seriously; The purpose to sue and labour is for protecting the right of patient's life and health; Judge the patient sued and laboured will agree in sueing and labouring the behavior with the rational patient's standard. Because of this, doctors can sue and labour the behavior to the patient, but needn't consider bearing responsibility. The second is the situation that the doctor implements medical privilege. If some risks of disease are told a patient, may cause attacking to patient's psychology, unfavorable to the treatment of disease. " operation medicine is imitated " and " medical crash handling regulations ", stipulate the doctor fulfils and tells that wants to avoid having a unfavorable impact on patient in our country. But this kind of doctor's judgement totally depends on doctor's personal judgement, does not have unified standard. This kind of the doctor's tells medical privilege judged, though its purpose is to safeguard the patient's interests, but as regards the patient's angle, its in the know to agree right may be deprived to a certain extent. So, this kind of right of the doctor's should try hard to limit its applicable range in application, in order to reduce to patient's infringement which agrees to right in the know. The third is the particular situation of the legal provision. For having infective disease, based on the need of social public consideration and hygiene management of the benefit, according to the stipulations of relevant law,it for patient should implement mandatory by segregation in accordance with the law, in hospital, treating behavior, do not need to obtain I or legal representative's consent. But the author thinks, when the patient's interests conflict with public interests, the demarcation lines of its public interests must be polarized, can't regard doctor's personal judgement as the standard. Deal with the exceptional situation of such public interests, there must be mandate of the law, the doctor should fulfil the duty according to legal condition and procedure strictly. It is the situation that patient gives up the right finally. The patient or gives up, often appear to the transfer of agreeing to right in the know after it is told that the hospital fulfils, the patient can't decide whether to accept the medical suggestion that a doctor puts forward or not, make the decision to give up one's own or transfer to a doctor and make the decision as him. So, when the patient declare that it decides and accepts the treatment measure of the doctor independently to give up, the laws and regulations should admit, the doctor can avoid and tell the responsibility uncompletely,etc.. It is that the patient must know he has right of agreeing in the know to give up the prerequisite of right of agreeing in the know, the patient needs to know doctor's obligation with explanation, know that has power to make decision agreed or refused oneself. The purpose that the doctor performs duty of telling, lie in the patient knows the situations of its relevant diseases, treating the risk,etc.. If some medical behaviors are general knowledge, the patient can know the facts of the case and make the choice according to general knowledge, it is unnecessary to tell by a doctor once again. According to contract law, the patient concludes the medical contract with the medical organization, in order to treat disease, safeguard and improve health. Attack as to patient's slight health, has already become a part of the medical contract content, tell, the doctor does not have a legal obligation as to this kind. Otherwise need the doctor to tell to ordinary medical general knowledge, will cause the medical cost to rise, cause the patient's unnecessary rise of treatment expenses finally. This should be paid attention to in the judicial practice. (Author's unit: Law school of university of Sichuan)


|