包医合同法律效力分析

虽然医疗行为存在多种风险与不确定性,但也不是所有的医疗行为都是不确定的。生活中经常有医方向患者承诺保证治疗效果的情形,从法律的角度来说,这时在医方与患者之间就形成了包医合同关系。论述了包医合同的性质及其法律效力。     

论医疗合同的附合化及其规制

医疗合同的附合化主要表现为患者对医疗机构意志的附合化;这种现象是经济与法律发展的必然结果;克服医疗合同附合化的关键在于立法规制,将医疗合同直接纳入<合同法>是现实可行的选择.     

高新技术临床应用中不合理诊疗行为的思考

高新医疗技术临床应用中的不合理诊疗行为,主要包括医方趋利性医疗行为和防御性医疗行为.通过典型案例对高新医疗技术临床应用中的不合理诊疗行为的成因进行分析,剖析不合理的诊疗行为,提出了规范应用高新医疗技术的对策.     

医疗过失的法律责任

引起医疗纠纷的事实可分为应由医方承担责任的事实和不应由医方承担责任的事实,只有医方符合法律责任的构成要件－即医疗行为的主体是医疗单位、主体有过失或违反义务的行为、有损害后果、而且主体的行为与损害后果之间有因果关系,才需承担法律责任,以消除只有损害后果医方就要承担法律责任和只有鉴定为医疗事故的才承担法律责任等方面的误区。     

论医疗合同的附合化及其规制

医疗合同的附合化主要表现为患者对医疗机构意志的附合化;这种现象是经济与法律发展的必然结果;克服医疗合同附合化的关键在于立法规制,将医疗合同直接纳入《合同法》是现实可行的选择。     

基于符号权力理论的医疗话语权研究

基于布迪厄符号权力理论,揭示在医疗话语权中,表达内容通俗易懂是第一要义,语气真诚亲切是人文关怀的体现;采取有效的沟通方式,可以增强话语的说服力;医疗话语权过度张扬则会导致语言暴力。医疗语言暴力的主要形式表现为医疗专业术语及工具性、纯理性的工具语言行为的过度使用;沟通时间受限削弱了患者话语权;医患双方信息不对称限制了患者的话语权。重构稳健医疗话语权力关系的途径包括:增加信任是医患平等话语权重构的基础,规避医方语言暴力,保持医方话语权与患者平等感之间的合理张力。     

高新技术临床应用中不合理诊疗行为的思考

高新医疗技术临床应用中的不合理诊疗行为,主要包括医方趋利性医疗行为和防御性医疗行为。通过典型案例对高新医疗技术临床应用中的不合理诊疗行为的成因进行分析,剖析不合理的诊疗行为,提出了规范应用高新医疗技术的对策。     

自我保护性医疗的伦理扫描--论患方知情同意与医方规避风险

自我保护性医疗是近年来医方为应对医患关系重构而采取的一种行为模式,其本身和影响具有全新特点,充满价值冲突;这种行为模式,客观上是对应医疗风险尤其是重大医疗风险的;主观上同医方免责期待的张扬以及对知情同意的解读直接相关;因而,正当的自我保护性医疗既取决于医方合理的免责期待,以及改变对知情同意的误读,更依赖于自身的医学伦理综合素质的打造和完善。     

医疗知情同意的法伦理思考

医疗知情同意是一项伦理原则,也是一项法律原则.虽然不同视角下的医疗知情同意具有相对不同的要求,但两者在本质上是一致的.尊重患者的知情同意权是患者和社会对医方所提出的要求,也是医方应尽的法律和伦理义务.因此,从法伦理视角审视知情同意原则,以凸显其丰富的内涵及其情、理、法的融合与统一.     

论信息不对称境遇下患者的诚信期待异化

当前我国医患危机境遇是一种价值选择困境,根源在于医患之间的信息不对称.历史经验与现实体验强化患者对医方的信任,患者在共同的诚信建构过程中变得懒惰,其行为本质上是患者医疗健康权利的非理性扩张,最终导致信息不对称境遇下患者诚信期待异化.反思患者自身的思维方式是消除诚信期待异化、重建医患诚信的必由之路.     

Effect propensity

In a choice between two options, decision makers can often be roughly divided into three groups: those who strongly prefer the first option, those who strongly prefer the second option, and those whose choices are most sensitive to the specific conditions (Switchers). In any reference state, such as the experimental control, Switchers’ choices are unlikely to be exactly equally divided between the options, which potentially creates a ceiling effect among those most susceptible to influence by the particular conditions or experimental manipulations. The limited growth potential of the option favored by Switchers in the reference state can produce “effect propensity,” whereby any condition or manipulation applied to the reference state is more likely to increase the share of the other option. We test this proposition in a series of studies in the context of choices between safe and risky options and between lower-price/quality and higher-price/quality options. The results indicate that a large majority of conceptually unrelated manipulations tend to increase the choice share of risky and higher-price/quality options. This effect propensity can be reversed when the risky and higher-price/quality options are the status quo alternatives or asymmetrically dominating in the reference state. Alternative explanations for effect propensity are examined. We discuss the implications of effect propensity for the interpretation of research findings, the selection of controls, and theory tests.     

自我不确定感对程序公正效应的调节作用:回顾与展望

自我不确定感是指个体怀疑“自我”,并且对其看法不稳定而产生的内隐与外显的主观感受及反应.其研究方法主要有自我报告法与情境实验法.自DeCremer和Sedikides首先通过实证研究验证了自我不确定感对程序公正效应的调节作用后,研究者们通过将自我不确定感分解为情绪自我不确定、地位不确定和归属不确定以及探讨程序公正认知机制,不断扩展了此领域的研究成果.未来可以通过自我不确定感调节效应的本土化研究,自我不确定感特质与情境成分交互作用的探讨,自我不确定感与自我肯定、信息不确定感等相关变量的关系研究,进一步深化此领域的研究.     

任务需求对语义水平负相容效应的影响

结合掩蔽启动范式和Go-Nogo范式, 证明了语义水平负相容效应的存在, 考察了任务需求对语义水平负相容效应的影响。实验以汉字“左”和“右”作为掩蔽启动项, 在两个Block的Go试次中分别以双箭头和汉字为目标项, 要求被试做辨别反应, 在Nogo试次中不呈现目标项, 无需反应。行为结果发现, 只有当启动项与任务需求相关时才出现负相容效应。ERP结果发现, 只有在任务需求相关时Go任务中一致条件下的P3潜伏期更长; Nogo任务中, 相关条件下两种汉字启动项诱发的N2平均波幅差异显著, 相关和无关两种条件下P3波幅差异显著。说明语义水平负相容效应受自上而下任务需求影响, 这种影响是通过自上而下认知控制加工的调节实现的。     

Defending Double Effect

According to the doctrine of double effect(DDE), there is a morally significantdifference between harm that is intended andharm that is merely foreseen and not intended.It is not difficult to explain why it is bad tointend harm as an end (you have a ``badattitude' toward that harm) but it is hard toexplain why it is bad to intend harm as a meansto some good end. If you intend harm as a meansto some good end, you need not have a ``badattitude' toward it. I distinguish two ways inwhich you can treat something that is yourchosen means to your ends. You can pursue yourends directly, and treat X as a mere means thatyou pursue for the sake of your end. Or you canpursue your ends indirectly, and treat X as a``plan-relative end' that you pursue for its ownsake. I argue that much of the time we pursueour ends indirectly, and treat our means asplan-relative ends. There are significantanalogies between intending harm as an end, andintending harm as a plan-relative end. So,under certain circumstances, it is morallyworse to intend harm as a means or an end thanto foresee bringing about the same amount of harm.     

自尊对主观幸福感的影响：有调节的中介效应

采用问卷法调查了1084名高一至大四的学生,探讨了自尊、主观幸福感、自我怀疑及抑郁的关系。结果发现：自尊在自我怀疑与主观幸福感之间起部分中介作用,这一中介作用的实现受到抑郁的调节,即自尊对主观幸福感的影响是有调节的中介效应。     

The Effect of Expected Value on Attraction Effect Preference Reversals

The attraction effect shows that adding a third alternative to a choice set can alter preference between the original two options. For over 30 years, this simple demonstration of context dependence has been taken as strong evidence against a class of parsimonious value‐maximising models that evaluate alternatives independently from one another. Significantly, however, in previous demonstrations of the attraction effect alternatives are approximately equally valuable, so there was little consequence to the decision maker irrespective of which alternative was selected. Here we vary the difference in expected value between alternatives and provide the first demonstration that, although extinguished with large differences, this theoretically important effect persists when choice between alternatives has a consequence. We use this result to clarify the implications of the attraction effect, arguing that although it robustly violates the assumptions of value‐maximising models, it does not eliminate the possibility that human decision making is optimal. © 2016 The Authors Journal of Behavioral Decision Making Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.