医疗机构处理弃婴问题的法律研究

近年来,婴儿被遗弃在医疗机构的事件频频发生,然而由于法律的不完善使得医疗机构在处理这些弃婴时非常棘手.从剖析婴儿被弃医院的原因和医疗机构处理弃婴存在的困难入手,阐述现有法律关于弃婴的规定存在的缺陷和完善弃婴法律制度的措施.     

弃婴引发的思考

婴儿被弃事件频频发生,大量弃婴涌入福利院、医疗机构.从目前我国弃婴的状况、常见类型出发,探讨弃婴产生的根本原因,医疗机构应当如何应对弃婴及如何加强全社会包括立法、司法、行政、宣传教育、医疗卫生等部门对弃婴的全面管理,以期从源头上避免此类事件的发生.     

“弃婴岛”生命高于一切

<正>[新华网]随着两会的召开,"弃婴岛"的问题再次引起了人们的讨论。3月9日,出席十二届全国人大二次会议第二次全体会议的民政部部长李立国在北京回答记者提问时表示:"弃婴安全岛是利大于弊。."从去年婴儿安全岛试点工作在各地开展以来,目前已有10个省区市建成25个弃婴岛并投入使用,还有1 8个省区市正在积极筹建"弃婴岛"或弃婴观察救治中心。[随感]对于设立"弃婴岛",一直有两极化的观点:支持者认为,"弃婴岛"能使弃婴得到及时     

提高医学生法律素质促进医患关系健康发展——由“佛山弃婴”案引发的思考

“佛山弃婴”案反映了当前医患关系的紧张和医务人员法律素质的缺乏,唤起了高等医学教育对医学生法律素质培养的重视,由此提出深化医学生对医患关系的理解、提高医学生的人文执业能力、提高医学生的职业道德修养三个培养目标,并从完善教育体系、创新教育模式和搭建实践平台三个层面提高医学生法律素质、促进医患关系健康发展的构想.     

卫生立法迫在眉睫

涉及医疗机构的法律事务处理方面明显存在“两个强化”的趋势,一是强化医疗责任追究,二是强化病家利益维护。但医疗行业在处理法律事务方面仍处于长期形成的各自为阵,自行处理的局面。鉴于以上情况,提出区域性医学法律协作中心问题。     

我国远程医疗的医疗损害责任初探

介绍了现行法律规定下远程医疗的医疗损害责任,通过对远程医疗中的不同法律关系进行分析,指出医疗机构为远程医疗中的重要法律主体,其在医师亲自检查和注意义务标准等权利义务方面存在不同。进而展开远程医疗活动中的损害责任构成及责任分配的讨论,提出了在不同法律关系中医疗机构与远程医疗其他参与者对于远程医疗中医疗损害的责任分配方式。旨在帮助医疗机构明确自己的定位,推动我国远程医疗活动的医疗损害责任制度建立。     

论医疗机构的强制缔约义务

强制缔约是对合同自由的限制,目的是使事实上处于优势地位的主体缔结合同,最终保障弱势群体的利益。强制缔约应是医疗机构的一项普遍义务,医疗机构违反此项义务,不仅可能承担行政和刑事责任,如果造成患者损害的还应承担民事责任。提出完善医疗机构强制律约义务的法律的建议。     

论医疗机构的强制缔约义务

强制缔约是对合同自由的限制,目的是使事实上处于优势地位的主体缔结合同,最终保障弱势群体的利益.强制缔约应是医疗机构的一项普遍义务,医疗机构违反此项义务,不仅可能承担行政和刑事责任,如果造成患者损害的还应承担民事责任.提出完善医疗机构强制律约义务的法律的建议.     

“基因编辑婴儿”事件中的权利侵害与法律反思

"基因编辑婴儿"事件的发生反映了伦理调节的失灵和法律规范的缺位。从权利角度分析,此次事件伤害了被"编辑"的婴儿和后代人两类权利主体,包括他们的生命健康权、自主权、平等权等。同时,现行法律赋予两类权利主体的权利救济路径有限,导致维权困境的出现。为保护利益相关者的合法权利,法律应当结合技术的快速发展做出及时、恰当的回应和调整,相关权利保护法律体系应当实现合理构建和完善,法律责任的配置应当得到进一步加强和优化。     

民政部和国家宗教事务局下发通知规范宗教界收留孤儿、弃婴活动

正本刊讯近日,民政部、国家宗教事务局联合下发《关于规范宗教界收留孤儿、弃婴活动的通知》(以下简称《通知》),对规范宗教界收留孤儿、弃婴活动,保障孤儿、弃婴的合法权益,维护宗教界在孤儿、弃婴救助方面的积极性具有重要作用。     

Baseline Response Levels are a Nuisance in Infant Contingency Learning

The impact of differences in level of baseline responding on contingency learning in the first year was examined by considering the response acquisition of infants classified into baseline response quartiles. Whereas the three lower baseline groups showed the predicted increment in responding to a contingency, the highest baseline responders did not. Instead, they responded less in the contingency period relative to baseline. In extinction, the four baseline quartile groups failed to differ. The findings are considered in the context of the law of initial value, and some potential reasons for the effect of baseline responding on contingency learning are discussed. These studies show that variability in baseline responding may compromise our understanding of contingency detection especially for infants with high baseline response levels. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The right to refuse treatment: What the research reveals

This review encompasses all published and many unpublished studies of refusal of antipsychotic medication by psychiatric inpatients. Many of the extant studies in this area have methodologic flaws in the means employed to gather or analyze data; where relevant to the points being considered, these flaws are noted. The review is broken down into five sections: frequency of refusal, characteristics of medication refusers, reasons for refusal, the natural history of medication refusal, and responses to refusal. A final section summarizes the extent of our knowledge today and points to future areas of investigation.     

Public Reason, Religious Restraint and Respect

In recent years liberals have had much to say about the kinds of reasons that citizens should offer one another when they engage in public political debates about existing or proposed laws. One of the more notable claims that has been made by a number of prominent liberals is that citizens should not rely on religious reasons alone when persuading one another to support or oppose a given law or policy. Unsurprisingly, this claim is rejected by many religious citizens, including those who are also committed to liberalism. In this paper I revisit that debate and ask whether liberal citizens have a moral obligation not to explain their support for existing or proposed laws on the basis of religious reasons alone. I suggest that for most (ordinary) citizens no such obligation exists and that individuals are entitled to explain their support for a specific law and to persuade others of the merits of that law on the basis of religious reasons alone (though there may be sound prudential reasons for not doing so). My argument is grounded in the claim that in most instances advocating laws on the basis of religious reasons alone is consistent with treating citizens with equal respect. However, I acknowledge an exception to that claim is to be found when using religious reasons to justify a law also implies that the state endorses those reasons. For this reason I argue that there is a moral obligation for some (publicly influential) citizens, and especially those who hold public office, to refrain from explaining their support for existing or proposed laws on the basis of religious reasons. I conclude by suggesting that this understanding of the role of religion in public political discourse and the obligations of liberal citizens is a better reflection of our experience of liberal citizenship than that given in some well-known accounts of liberalism.     

Examining individual differences in infants’ habituation patterns using objective quantitative techniques

The assessment of individual differences in infant habituation patterns is important for answering basic questions about continuity in cognitive development. Nevertheless, there are flaws with existing methods for determining relevant parameters of the cognitive processes associated with habituation. In this paper, a more rigorous, model-based alternative approach is illustrated. The approach demonstrates how the habituation data of individual infants may be fit by specific functions, how habituation may be distinguished from random responding, and how the parameter estimates of individual infants’ habituation functions might be analyzed for meaningful subgroups or clusters. The model-based approach provides novel insights about individual subgroups when applied to a real habituation data set and thereby demonstrates the feasibility and utility of the techniques advocated.     

Reconsidering the parent analogy: unfinished business for skeptical theists

Skeptical theism has as its foundation the thesis that if God permits evil, his reasons for doing so will likely be beyond our ken. The only defense given for this thesis is the Parent Analogy. There is in the literature only one defense of this use of the Parent Analogy and it has never been confronted. I examine it and expose serious flaws, thus exposing a crack in the very foundation of skeptical theism.     

Reconsidering the dead donor rule: is it important that organ donors be dead?

The "dead donor rule" is increasingly under attack for several reasons. First, there has long been disagreement about whether there is a correct or coherent definition of "death." Second, it has long been clear that the concept and ascertainment of "brain death" is medically flawed. Third, the requirement stands in the way of improving organ supply by prohibiting organ removal from patients who have little to lose--e.g., infants with anencephaly--and from patients who ardently want to donate while still alive--e.g., patients in a permanent vegetative state. One argument against abandoning the dead donor rule has been that the rule is important to the general public. There is now data suggesting that this assumption also may be flawed. These findings add additional weight to proposals to abandon the dead donor rule so that organ supply can be expanded in a way that is consistent with traditional notions of ethics, law, public policy, and public opinion.     

Rescuing Fair-Play as a Justification for Punishment

The debate over whether ‘fair-play’ can serve as a justification for legal punishment has recently resumed with an exchange between Richard Dagger and Antony Duff. According to the fair-play theorist, criminals deserve punishment for breaking the law because in so doing the criminal upsets a fair distribution of benefits and burdens, and punishment rectifies this unfairness. Critics frequently level two charges against this idea. The first is that it often gives the wrong explanation of what makes crime deserving of punishment, since the wrongfulness of murder is not primarily about unfairness. The second is that it implies that all crimes deserve the same degree of punishment, because all crimes create the same degree of unfairness. These objections are viewed as revealing fatal flaws in the theory. Although Dagger attempts to meet these objections by drawing on political theory, Duff responds that this still draws upon the wrong kind of resources for meeting these objections. This paper argues that these two objections rest on a crucial mistake that has been overlooked by both the defenders and critics of fair-play. This mistake results from failing to distinguish between what justifies punishment as a response to crime (which requires a common element to all crime) and what justifies attaching particular penalties to crimes (which requires making distinctions in the severity of crime). The arguments presented will give reasons to consider fair-play as a viable justification for legal punishment.     

Argumentation in ethics, legal dogmatics and legal practice

The author adopts a coherentist approach to legal argumentation.Ceteris paribus, the degree of coherence of argumentation depends on answers to such questions as: How many statements belonging to the justification are supported by reasons, that is, not arbitrary?, How profound is the justification, that is, how long are the chains of reasons it contains?, How closely interconnected are the reasons, for example in such a way that the same conclusion follows from various independent reasons?, How relevant are the reasons in the context in question?, etc.A reasonable legal argumentation is a special case of a reasonable moral argumentation. Both contain moral substantive reasons and legal authority reasons. On the other hand, some particularities of legal argumentation must be noticed, as well. Among other things, the lawyers take for granted that legal reasoning is based on valid law and that some sources of law, such as statutes, are binding.There exist various juristic roles and corresponding types of argumentation, e.g., judicial and doctrinal ones. Yet, all kinds of legal argumentation must use weighing and balancing in order to make the law coherent and morally acceptable. Consequently, all general principles and criteria of coherence are applicable to all these types but their weight varies between them.     

Reaffirming the poverty of the stimulus argument: a reply to the replies

Lidz, Waxman, and Freedman [Lidz, J., Waxman, S., & Freedman, J. (2003). What infants know about syntax but couldn’t have learned: Evidence for syntactic structure at 18-months. Cognition, 89, B65-B73.] argue that acquisition of the syntactic and semantic properties of anaphoric one in English relies on innate knowledge within the learner. Several commentaries have now been published questioning this finding. We defend the original finding by identifying both empirical and logical flaws in the critiques.     

The infant ‘motoric’ dream: where mothers' eye and scientist meet

One hundred twenty women were asked about their ideas on infants' dream. Two interviews were undertaken, before birth and 1 month after birth. The majority of women (both before and after birth) responded that infants dream. The reasons why they attributed dreaming to infants changed from before birth to after birth. At one month, these reasons were based on infant movements and behaviours, factors also taken into consideration by sleep researchers. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.