告知后同意规则的法律构造

在具有侵袭性的医疗行为中,医师负有告知义务,以患者得以了解的语言,告知病人病情、治疗方案、各方案可能的的风险,以及不治疗的后果等。告知义务的履行应采取理性患者的标准。告知义务也有例外。医师违反告知后同意义务并非直接侵害了患者的健康权,而是侵害了患者的自我决定权或自我决定法益,它将可能进一步引起对患者健康权的侵害,造成患者人身损害。     

论患者隐私权保护——兼论侵害“告知后同意”之请求权基础

隐私权已从传统消极防御面向发展到兼具积极支配面向,主要包括四项权能:隐私隐瞒权、隐私利用权、隐私维护权和隐私支配权.《侵权责任法》第62条、第61条、第55条和第56条对应以上四种权能并共同构筑了患者隐私权范畴.患者隐私支配权需要借助于对患者的“告知后同意”实现,告知的内容应当包括医师同时兼具的研究者身份与潜在利益冲突.“告知后同意”虽然可以作为一种法益或者注意义务之违反得到救济,但作为某种权利得到保护系必然趋势,这种权利应是隐私权而非自主权.侵害患者“告知后同意”之隐私权的请求权基础应为第6条第1款,涉及赔偿责任时应适用特别规定第55条第2款,所涉损害主要系精神损害.     

自己决定权的确立与保护——从武汉数千男生被集体采血验DNA事件切入

受美国隐私权理论与司法实践的启发,日本学界及判例发展出自己决定权这一理论.结合我国实际,自己决定权作为基本人权,应在宪法上得以确立.自己决定权作为重要的人格权,在制定我国民法典的人格权法时亦应得以确立.自己决定权具有相对性,为了社会公共利益,在符合法律保留原则及法定程序下,公权力得制约自己决定权.对公权力侵害自己决定权的救济方式包括宪法上的违宪审查、请求检察机关行使监督权、民法上的人格权请求权及侵权请求权.     

网络公司客户名单商业秘密与个人信息隐私权的冲突与协调

网络环境下,客户名单具有信息收集内容更为丰富、信息收集方式更为主动、信息收集涉及个人隐私等新的特点。客户名单在流转过程中有可能侵害个人信息隐私权,而个人信息隐私权也可能限制客户名单财产利益的实现。为有效地协调二者之间的关系,应当明确个人信息收集告知原则、赋予客户个人信息决定权、规定网络公司客户名单流转的限制性条件。     

人工流产:权利抑或义务——女性主义视角下中美堕胎法比较研究

美国法上妇女堕胎权是宪法上保护的权利,但各州政府有权对此进行规范、限制甚至在一定条件下禁止。中国法上妇女享有充分的堕胎权,仅禁止选择性别的人工流产,但在计划生育国策下,有时人工流产成为义务,妇女的生殖健康也被漠视甚至受到侵害。以妇女为中心,保障妇女的堕胎自主决定权与生殖健康是女性主义对人工流产的法律进路。     

违反医疗告知义务的损害赔偿责任

一、医疗告知义务的性质(一)域外医疗告知义务的历史考察从历史上看,医疗告知义务是作为告知同意理论的重要内容而发展起来。告知同意理论是指.为了尊重患者的自己决定权,在实施侵袭性医疗行为前,医务人员应该向患者提供患者行使自己决定权所需的医学情报。根据该理论。告知义务是基于患者的自由决定权产生的.是医生对患者承担     

关于隐私权保护的法律思考(下)

隐私权是公民对其个人生活领域的隐私享有的不被非法获悉、公开、干涉的权利。运用法律来保护公民隐私权,是社会文明进步与现代法制发展的结果,也是一国用以衡量个人地位与尊严的重要指标。各国法律都明确承认个人隐私权,以保障公民隐私不受非法侵害。     

关于隐私权保护的法律思考(上)

隐私权是公民对其个人生活领域的隐私享有的不被非法获悉、公开、干涉的权利。运用法律来保护公民隐私权,是社会文明进步与现代法制发展的结果,也是一国用以衡量个人地位与尊严的重要指标。各国法律都明确承认个人隐私权,以保障公民隐私不受非法侵害。     

法制社会中的隐私权保护

法治社会对隐私权的保护是通过赋予该权以防御权能与积极权能来实现的.通过宪法与侵权行为法的规定而体现出来的防御权能,使公民在家庭生活和私人事务领域中享有充分的自由决定权,不受他人或公权力的干预.而随着信息时代的到来,法律也顺应时代的要求,通过数据法以权利不穷竭原则为理论基础,赋予公民资讯自主的权利,使公民有权自主决定个人信息在何时、以何种方式、在多大程度上对外公开.     

论英美法违反"告知后同意"过失侵权的构成要件

违反"告知后同意"的专业过失侵权包括三个要件:医生负有告知义务而未告知,患者受有损害,以及医生未告知与患者受损害之间存在因果关系.医生得因患者已知、紧急情况、医疗特权等事由而免除告知义务;损害应仅限于患者的具体人身法益的损害,而不包括患者自主决定权;在因果关系判断上宜采"合理患者"标准而非"患者本人"标准,因为"患者本人"标准消解了过失侵权作为医疗纠纷诉因的适当性.     

私权平等与身份限制——再审视“公众人物”的人格权

人格权是私人享有的权利,而私人权利又可分为公权利和私权利两个方面。"公众人物"的人格权主要涉及私法与其私权利的一面。"公众人物"的人格权与一般人的人格权并无不同,现有的限制理论均有缺憾。故我们仅需界定人格权本身而无需对其主体进行分类。不必建立"公众人物"法律概念,在人格平等的私法理念下各类主体不应被区别对待。     

基因信息与基因隐私权的保护

基因信息包含了一个人生命的全部秘密，应纳入隐私权的保护范围。基因隐私权的内容包括采样时的知情同意权，基因信息的知晓权，基因信息的保密权，基因信息的利用权。侵犯基因隐私权具有便捷性、隐蔽性、关联性、实质性、长久性等特点。我国立法应确立基因隐私权。侵害基因隐私权应承担相应民事责任。     

论公众人物及其隐私权

公众人物是指在一定时间和空间范围内具有重要影响，并且与社会公众利益有关从而为该时空范围内的人们所广泛知晓和关注的人物。其判断标准有两个：一是社会知名度，二是与社会公共利益相关。由隐私权的基本权利性质决定，公众人物作为社会大众中的一员享有隐私权是无可争议的，公众人物的隐私权理应受到相应的法律保护。并且，基于公众人物隐私权不同于普通公民隐私权的特性，应当加大对公众人物的隐私权的保护力度。     

个人健康医疗信息和隐私权保护

Personal health care and medical treatment information are both personal information which can be used as a sign to identify each individual. Such information shall be under the control of the owner. The comprehensiveness of personal health care and medical treatment information makes it more valuable than the simplex personal information. The controlling right of personal health care and medical treatment information is irretrievable once deprived. The rights of controlling, managing and using regarding personal health care and medical treatment information can be separated appropriately. The right of privacy is an independent personality right. For the protection of public interests, the right of personal privacy shall be appropriately limited. Meanwhile, the government shall be responsible for the protection of personal health care and medical treatment information. Tang Xiaotian is a professor and supervisor in charge of the development and planning division of Shanghai University of Political Science and Law, and deputy General Secretary-in-chief of the Society of Law of Shanghai, whose main studies is focused on victim science, criminal law and criminology. Till now, he has 8 monographs and over 90 articles published in academic journals.     

Brief for bioethicists for privacy as amicus curiae supporting appellees

Amicus, an ad hoc group of philosophers, theologians, attorneys, and physicians, believe that adults should consult their doctor when making personal decisions. The doctor-patient relationship would be protected under the Constitution. In "Griswold v. Connecticut," the Supreme Court said that a state law which forbid married couples from using contraceptives was unconstitutional; that the couples should have a right to privacy. In "Roe," the Supreme Court recognized that a patient and her doctor should have privacy. In "Doe v. Bolton," the Supreme Court found that the State of Georgia was violating the patients' and physician's freedom. In "Planned Parenthood of Missouri v. Danforth," the Supreme Court said that a general informed consent provision was alright because it did not take away the abortion decision. The post- Roe state laws were ways to control doctors and patients so that a particular philosophical view could be imposed. The major question in Webster is whether personal decisions should be made by doctors and patients or the state. Both parties must agree to the decision. Section 188.205 of the Missouri law was before the Court in Webster. This section makes it illegal for public funds to be used to encourage a woman to have an abortion that wasn't necessary to save her life. There are medical conditions for which abortion is reasonable - Tay-Sachs disease, for instance. The child usually dies by 3 years of age. Without genetic screening, many at-risk couples would abort all pregnancies. 95% of all prenatal screenings are negative. State medical treatment decisions are arbitrary and impersonal. Having control over important personal decisions is necessary for freedom.     

突发公共卫生事件中位置数据的披露:基于健康权和隐私权的视角

位置数据披露在防控新冠病毒(COVID-19)等传染病期间在国家、公共卫生机构及个人层面具有三重价值、成效显赫;但也暴露出健康权与隐私权之间的内在张力.全球范围内存在三种位置数据披露模式:一是模糊地理数据披露模式,即向所有公众公开仅涉及概括性、脱敏性的位置数据信息;二是对特定人群信息披露模式,针对可能的密切接触者等特定群体统一披露已被感染者位置数据;三是查询披露模式,即有需求的个体将自身位置信息输入后查询是否存在密切接触等可能性.各国政府试图用不同模式探索平衡健康权与隐私权之间的最佳之选,但仍存实践难题.在突发公共卫生事件中平衡健康权与隐私权需要从以下三个维度着重考量:第一,坚持维护公众健康的首要目标;第二,建立位置数据披露的分层分类思维,根据不同的需要在不同范围内进行披露;第三,明确位置数据的事后删除期限以及可能的损害救济路径.     

论侵犯患者隐私权的法律责任

患者隐私权是应当受到保护的一种人格权利，但在医疗和医学教学活动中侵犯患者隐私权的事件时有发生，以至于患者和医护人员对簿公堂，因此对患者隐私权予以法律保护具有重要意义。在医疗活动和医学教学活动中，如何保护患者隐私权、在法律规定上如何将个人隐私权作为一项独立的人格权加以保护，应进行必要的思考和提出相应的对策。     

The conflict of understanding the genetic make-up of man and his knowledge of it

The rapid development within the research of the human genome offers a great potential with regard to the diagnosis of genetic diseases but it also bears dangers of misuse. The starting point for avoiding these dangers is the autonomy of the individual, i.e. that the information about his genetic constitution should only be ascertained with his explicit consent. It is the duty of law to protect the individual and his relatives - who might also be concerned - without undermining the right to self-determination. Furthermore, it is discussed whether genetic tests should be limited to "health purposes" only. The problem of this limitation, however, is to define the term "health purposes" particularly when the criterion of "quality of life" is also taken into consideration. In order to assure a responsible handling of the genetic data, genetic analysis and especially the counselling of the subject should be reserved to the medical profession, since only a real understanding of the individual's genetic constitution with all risks and chances will enable him to make an informed and self-determined decision.     

海洋的“公物”属性与海域用益物权的制度构建

自罗马法以降,海洋即具有＂公物＂属性。国家领海主权与国家海域所有权的出现,亦未改变海洋的＂公物＂属性。由这一属性所决定,海域用益物权的法理基础,不可能建立在国家海域所有权的＂权能转移＂基础之上,而只能建立在海洋资源的保护与合理利用的公共利益基础之上。由此出发,海域用益物权制度的构建,应通过严格法定主义原则,来适应明确界定公共利益范围的法治要求;在海域用益物权合同的订立中,国家不享有承诺自由,并且合同的相对性原则应受到第三人利益的限制;将海洋渔业养殖许可与海域用益物权相割裂,将前者视为一种资质许可的观点,不能成立。