隨著病人權利意識的抬頭，病人逐漸擺脫以往對於醫師之崇拜服從心態，因此醫師於實施醫療行為時，若有不合病患或其家屬預期之結果發生，往往引起病人或家屬之質疑，進而引發醫療糾紛，傳統和諧之醫病關係，已受到明顯之衝擊。事實上，由於醫療行為本身即具有其特殊性及複雜性，基於醫學技術發展對於人體疾病認知的有限性，醫師於醫療診治過程中，對於治療的結果並非全然得以控制並擔保其結果之完整性而無任何危險存在，醫療糾紛，不僅僅是病人的夢靨，醫師們更是聞之色變。本文針對醫療糾紛相關法律責任討論共分為五章，簡述如下：
第一章為「緒論」，敘述本文研究動機、研究目的、研究範圍、研究方法、章節架構及內容等，將本文所欲探討之議題、方向與範圍先作定性與釐清。第二章為「健康權與醫療人權」，個人健康權是否為憲法之基本權，在我國憲法並無明文規定，健康權在憲法上法律基礎為何？並針對健康權保障的理論基礎、健康權之相關保障法治，與醫療人權之意義於本章節說明之。第三章為「醫療糾紛主要類型及責任」，從醫療糾紛之定義與類型說明，分別對於刑事責任、民事責任與懲戒詳細討論，從過失責任之概念判斷標準，並對於醫療行為之認定可否採無過失責任，就學理與實務上分別討論之，在進一步介紹我國醫事爭議審議制度，並比較兩岸醫療糾紛處理的法律依據，且對於大陸地區《醫療事故處理條例》介紹之。第四章為「醫療水準與醫療常規及相關案例之分析」，在醫療訴訟中，是否違反注意義務的標準為何，論述各異，醫療過失指醫師違反當時當地之醫療水準所要求之醫療常規，以醫療案例對於個案之注意義務之判斷標準詳細說明之。第五章即針對整篇論文之研究，提出本文之想法與意見，期待為我國實務於醫療糾紛之相關法律責任判斷之運作，提供一臂之力。
With the awakening of claims-consciousness, the patient is no longer as obedient as they were before. Doctor was questioned and challenged when the consequences are not in accordance with the expectations. Disputes arise therefore and the harmonious tradition of doctor-patient relationship has been much impacted. In fact, there is an inherent complexity and specialty of medical practice, doctor is quite limited by the progress of medical knowledge. Neither the consequence of medical practice can be completely controlled, nor can the risk be excluded totally. Dispute brings burdens on both patients and doctors. This paper addresses the related legal liabilities in medical dispute and goes as follow:
In chapter one “Introduction”, I will demonstrate the motivation, purpose, scope and approach of my research and the structure of this paper.
In chapter two “Rights to health and Rights to health care”, I will elaborate the constitutional and theoretical foundations, and the related institutions of those concepts.
In chapter three “The common types and liabilities in medical disputes”, I will go further to provide more detailed discussions over criminal, civil and administrative liabilities respectively, which including the issues on the judgement of negligence liability and the applicability of no-fault liability in medical practice. Further introducing Taiwan's Medical Dispute Resolutions and The Regulation on the Handling of Medical Accidents in China，and comparing the legal basis in medical dispute cases between cross-straits.
In chapter four "Analysis of medical standard and medical guideline on the case-basis", I will review the standards of duty of care in litigations and explain the differences. Medical negligence refers to doctor violates the contemporary medical guidelines where he/she practices.
In chapter five, I will render opinions on this research as a contribution in assisting the judgement of legal liability in medical disputes.
