临床思维的逻辑性

卫生法制建设是社会主义法治建设的必然要求,也是卫生与经济、社会协调发展的迫切需要;卫生法制建设需要确立科学的认识观和发展观,需要构架现代化发展战略目标。只有这样,才能务实地推进国家与地方区域的卫生法制现代化进程。     

和谐医患环境与公民健康权的保障

在健康权保障体系中,卫生资源配置的公平与效率的失衡是导致现阶段我国公民健康权不平等的关键。而作为一级经济主体的医疗机构,在促进卫生资源配置和享用的公平性作用上,则是无效率的,因此国家应积极运用法律、政策等外部手段,实现其协调性的复位,以服务于建设和谐医患环境的需要。     

代孕技术的伦理与法律思考

简要介绍了代孕的概念,指出了在我国有条件开放代孕的合理性。从家庭关系、子宫工具化和婴儿商业化三个方面给出了代孕合理性的伦理依据。从合同法、身体权、生育权三个方面给出了法律的解读。从伦理与法律两方面对我国有条件的开放代孕加以论述,并提出相应对策及理论支持。     

医患关系危机的法律思考

现行调整医患关系的法律制度存在位阶低、效力弱,调整范围窄、操作性差,执法不严、适用法律混乱,鉴定结论公正性低,医患双方守法意识淡薄等问题。构建和谐医患关系需要制定统一法典、扩大立法领域、重建医患纠纷解决机制、调整鉴定机构、建立医疗服务审计制度、加强司法审判与法制教育。     

Metadialogues for Resolving Burden of Proof Disputes

In this paper, a solution to the problem of analyzing burden of proof in argumentation is developed by building on the pioneering work of Erik C. W. Krabbe on metadialogues. Three classic cases of burden of proof disputes are analyzed, showing how metadialogue theory can solve the problems they pose. The solution is based on five dialectical requirements: (1) global burden of proof needs to be set at the confrontation stage of a dialogue, (2) there need to be special mechanisms for resolving disputes about burden of proof at all four stages of the dialogue, (3) they are especially significant during the argumentation stage, where burden of proof often shifts back and forth at each move, (4) such local shifts need to be partly regulated by the global burden of proof already set, and (5) the connection between burden of proof and the speech act of making a presumption in a dialogue needs to be clarified.     

无过错输血感染法律责任的承担

现行法律、法规规定,无过错输血感染的法律责任采取过错责任归责原则,意味着当医患双方均无过错而又造成输血感染的损害后果时,完全由患者承担损害后果,这种规定无法体现公平、公正的法律精神。无过错输血感染法律责任应当规定为公平责任,这样才能更好地既保护医方利益又保护患方利益。     

关于异质人工授精子女法律地位的思考

随着现代人工生殖技术的飞速发展,人类传统的自然生殖方式、社会观念和法律制度受到了极大的挑战。异质人工授精主要解决男性不育的问题。这种生殖技术在为人类带来福音的同时,也引起了一系列法律、伦理和社会问题,使传统的亲子观念受到冲击。通过对人工授精中供精和受精当事人的资格,以及异质人工授精子女的法律地位及相关法律问题进行探讨,提出了完善我国相关立法的建议。     

近20年来美国法律社会心理学研究新进展

20世纪80年代以来美国法律社会心理学在陪审团、证人证言、公民对犯罪的态度等方面的研究取得了一些新成果。从这些新成果可以看出,该领域的研究者们更注重将社会心理学与法学的观点和研究视角相结合,使自己的理论成果更符合实践要求。     

In the Field – The Development of Reasons in Criminal Proceedings

This paper is concerned with argumentation in legal proceedings, namely in criminal cases. My interest is to explore how in the legal realm different argumentation fields interact, the juridical field being just one of them. The paper lays out an approach of studying argumentation in the legal realm in the framework of an ethnographic methodology by identifying the “topical rules” the participants in criminal trials adhere to. Suggesting the notion of field-dependence as a good starting point for the analysis of legal argumentation, I will give several examples of different fields of argumentation interacting in criminal proceedings. The examination of what counts as a good reason and how arguments are employed, negotiated, and evaluated within a criminal proceeding might shed light on the practice of constructing facts and arriving at decisions in court. It can furthermore point at the constitution of legal rationality and how it is produced in criminal trials. I argue that rationality in criminal proceedings is interactively accomplished by negotiating different standards of validity.     

The principle of liberty and legal representation of posterity

This paper considers a guardianship model for the legal representation of future generations. According to this model, national and international courts should be given the competence to appoint guardians for future generations, if agents who care about the welfare of posterity apply for the creation of a guardianship in relation to a dispute that can be resolved by the application of law. This reform would grant guardians of future people legal standing or locus standi before courts, that is, the right to bring an action before a court of law for adjudication. Although the guardianship model faces several difficult theoretical and practical problems pertaining to the representation of different near and distant future generations, it is argued that this model – and certain other legal norms intended to protect future basic needs – can be justified on the basis of the principle of liberty.