[[alternative]]A Legal Study of Severely-Illed Patient's Right to Refuse Life-Sustaining Treatment

[[abstract]] 本論文討論的重點在於探討重症患者對於拒絕維生醫療的權限，企圖透過法學的觀點，來理解患者對於維生醫療法律上的權利何在，範圍如何，以掙得特別是重症患者的自己決定權，讓其能夠過法律的保障，而保有人性尊嚴，在具有生命品質的情況下，自然地邁向臨終。 第一章針對本文的研究動機與方法，及進行的層次與邏輯作簡單的說明。第二章為避免被誤解本文所討論的是安樂死或包含安樂死的問題，所以有必要就本議題作簡單的定位，與相關概念的澄清。再者，為使更清礎呈現該議題的重要性，亦對於該議提的發展因素與背景作歸納及介紹，並剖析重視患者拒絕維生醫療所能帶來的利益。 第三章則藉由權源的探討，來理解患者拒絕維生醫療的權利基礎，也因此得知該權利並非安寧緩和醫療條例所創設，係源自於憲法層次的人性尊嚴、自己決定權，及普通法上的人身不受侵害、醫病關係及告知同意原則。並提出權利衝突時的協調之道，避免患者拒絕維生醫療的權限，因其他的權利保障問題，而受到壓抑，同時也避免該權利被濫用。 第四章則針對適用主體、醫療範圍、患者決定能力、代理權限等具體問題討論，深入理解患者拒絕維生醫療時可能遭遇的難題，例如為患者決定、限制醫療範圍的基準等，並透過美國立法例與實務的見解，企圖尋得處理的基準與解決之道。 [[abstract]] The emphasis of the thesis is to probe into the right of the severely-illed patients to refuse life-sustaining treatments. The author tempts to understand, through the viewpoint of legislation, the patients’ right and its ambit concerning life-sustaining treatments and, therefore, to obtain the right of self-determination especially for the severely-illed patients. Under the protection of legislation, human dignity could be respected, and these people could die naturally with life’s quality. The first chapter talks about the motives and method of writing the thesis and illustrates the arrangement of ideas and the logic of the study. To avoid the misunderstanding that the thesis is about Euthanasia or including the issues of Euthanasia, the second chapter clarifies the concepts and makes a simple definition of the study. Further, to show the importance of the issue more clearly, it also generalizes and introduces the development and background of the issue and illustrates what benefits we can get by paying attention to the right of the patient to refuse life-sustaining treatments. The third chapter is to understand the basis of patients’ right to refuse life-sustaining treatments by researching into the origin of the right. And the result is that the right is not originated from the hospice regulation but according to the Constitution which claims human dignity and the right of self-determination, and it also according to the common law which claims the right to be free from assault and battery and the principals of informed-consent and physician-patient relationship. To avoid that the right to refuse life-sustaining treatments is repressed because of the protection of other rights and to prevent the right from being abused, this chapter also puts forward the way to compromise when the different rights are in conflict. The forth chapter talks about the specific problems including the qualified patients, the ambit of medical treatments, the decision-making capacity of the patients, and the limitation of the power of attorney. The author goes deep into the problems that the patients may encounter if they refuse life-sustaining treatments, such as making decisions for the patient, the standard of restricting medical treatments…etc. The author also tries to find out the standard ways to resolve these problems from the examples and practice of American legislation. The fifth chapter is the summary of the foregoing chapters. There also includes the reviews and suggestions to the current legislation, hoping that the legislation amendment in the future could make the laws much more mature and give patients complete protection.