請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/87263
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 林明昕 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.advisor | Ming-Hsin Lin | en |
dc.contributor.author | 余志磊 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author | Zhi-Lei Yu | en |
dc.date.accessioned | 2023-05-18T16:42:36Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2023-11-09 | - |
dc.date.copyright | 2023-05-11 | - |
dc.date.issued | 2022 | - |
dc.date.submitted | 2023-02-16 | - |
dc.identifier.citation | 一、中文部分
專書 E. Eichenhofer(著),李玉君、林谷燕、林炫秋、邵惠玲、孫迺翊、張桐銳、蔡維音、鍾秉正(譯)(2019),《德國社會法》,新學林。 王皇玉(2017),《刑法總則》,第三版,新學林。 王榮德(2010),《流行病學方法論》,健康文化。 王澤鑑(2018),《損害賠償》,第三版,自刊。 --------(2021),《侵權行為法》,增補版,自刊。 行政院環境保護署(1992),《公害無過失賠償之應用與舉證責任轉換之研究》,行政院環境保護署。 沈冠伶(2013),《民事證據法與武器平等原則》,元照。 --------(2017),《民事醫療訴訟與紛爭處理》,元照。 邱聯恭(2017),《口述民事訴訟法講義(三)》,自刊。 何建志(2018),《公費疫苗法制解析與重構》,元照。 李惠宗(2018),《憲法要義》,第七版,元照。 吳東都(2001),《行政訴訟之舉證責任-以德國法為中心》,學林。 姜世明(2020),《民事訴訟法(下冊)》,第七版,新學林。 ----------(2021),《民事證據法》,新學林。 林明鏘(2018),《行政法講義》,第四版,新學林。 林鈺雄(2016),《新刑法總則》,第五版,元照。 陳清秀(2012),《行政訴訟法》,第五版,元照。 陳聰富(2018),《侵權行為法原理》,第二版,元照。 黃榮堅(2012),《基礎刑法學(上)》,第四版,元照。 衛生福利部疾病管制署(2014),《百年榮耀,世紀傳承-1909-2014台灣百年公立疫苗製造史》,衛生福利部疾病管制署。 陳建仁(1999),《流行病學:原理與方法》,初版,聯經。 陳敏(2016),《行政法總論》,第九版,新學林。 陳聰富(2018),《侵權行為法原理》,第二版,元照。 張文郁(2014),《權利與救濟(三)實體與程序之交錯》,元照。 葉啟洲(2020),《保險法》,第六版,元照。 蔡墩銘(2008),《公害與法律:二十世紀台灣公害見聞》,翰蘆。 鍾秉正(2019),《社會保險法論》,第四版,三民。 專書之篇章 石勳平(2020),〈公害訴訟中之舉證責任減輕〉,收於:姜世明(編),《舉證責任減輕之研究—民事程序法焦點論壇第十卷》,頁369-432,新學林。 江伯倫(2013),〈疫苗免疫學〉,收於:行政院衛生署疾病管制局編,《感染與疫苗》,頁69-83,行政院衛生署疾病管制局。 吳建昌(2011),〈疫苗傷害事件之法律責任——因果關係之法律政策抉擇芻議〉,收於:羅昌發、林彩瑜、楊培侃(主編),《兩岸當代重要衛生法議題研究》,頁295-316,元照。李建良(2020),〈損失補償〉,收於:翁岳生(主編),《行政法(下)》,頁703-815,元照。 吳振吉(2019),〈醫療民事訴訟之舉證責任分配──我國近年實務見解解析〉,收於:姜世明(編),《醫師民事責任之實體與程序法上問題之研究—民事程序法焦點論壇第六卷》,頁119-196,新學林。 林三欽(2000),〈公法上危險責任(無過失責任)〉,收於:台灣行政法學會(編),《行政法爭議問題研究(下)》,頁1223-1240,五南。邱月暇(2013),〈疫苗經濟評估─決定(Deterministic)及隨機(Probabilistic)模式〉,收於:行政院衛生署疾病管制局編,《感染與疫苗》,頁671-717,行政院衛生署疾病管制局。 邱弘毅、陳怡樺(2004),〈流行病學與實證醫學〉,收於:邱文達、陳杰峰(編),《實證醫學:臨床流行病學方法之應用》,頁53-77,臺北市立萬芳醫院。林谷燕、林倖如、邵惠玲、郝鳳鳴、郭明政、蔡茂寅(2020),〈社會法的概念、範疇與體系〉,收於台灣社會法與社會政策學會(編),《社會法》頁25-48,三版,元照。 林明昕(2006),〈健康權-以「國家之保護義務」為中心〉,收於:《公法學的開拓線─理論、實務與體系之建構》,頁33-47,元照。 陳如欣、邱南昌(2013),〈預防接種受害救濟〉,收於:行政院衛生署疾病管制局編,《感染與疫苗》,頁740-767,行政院衛生署疾病管制局。 陳杰峰、吳碧娟(2004),〈認識實證醫學〉,收於:邱文達、陳杰峰(編),《實證醫學:臨床流行病學方法之應用》,頁1-18,臺北市立萬芳醫院。 陳淑芳、李秉穎(2013),〈預防接種實務〉,收於:行政院衛生署疾病管制局編,《感染與疫苗》,頁22-49,行政院衛生署疾病管制局。 劉定萍、張峰義(2013),〈我國預防接種政策之制訂與展望〉,收於:行政院衛生署疾病管制局(編),《感染與疫苗》,頁8-21,行政院衛生署疾病管制局。 期刊論文 吳志正(2008),〈以疫學手法作為民事因果關係認定之檢討〉,《東吳法律學報》,20卷1期,頁205-236。 吳志正(2010),〈預防接種受害因果關係之理性論證-從 H1N1 疫苗談起〉,《台灣法學雜誌》,146期,頁23-25。 李俊良(2015),〈預防接種受害救濟補償審議之正當法律程序──兼評臺北高等行政法院97年訴字第3185號判決〉,《憲政時代》,40卷3期,頁395-439。 邱玟惠(2011),〈由美、日經驗檢討我國預防接種受害救濟制度:從H1N1新型流感疫苗談起〉,《國立臺灣大學法學論叢》,40卷2期,頁629-706。 --------(2018),〈預防接種受害救濟審議小組之判斷餘地與預防接種受害救濟之因果關係認定-評最高行政法院 106 年度判字第 355 號判決〉,《法令月刊》,69卷3期,頁36-54。 林聿騰、邱泰錄(2017),〈H1N1疫苗接種救濟案:預防接種受害救濟之判斷餘地與舉證責任〉,《月旦醫事法報告》,14期,頁81-107。 何建志(2010),〈台灣H1N1疫苗接種後不良反應事件之因果關係: 科學不確定性與法律舉證責任〉,《法律與生命科學》,4卷1期,頁1-22。 李崇僖(2013),〈公害訴訟中因果關係認定之科學與法理〉,《全國律師》,17卷1期,頁5-16。 林詠青(2020),〈預防接種受害救濟制度實務常見問題解析〉,《疫情報導》,36卷21期,頁341-351。 姜世明(2004),〈醫師民事責任程序中之舉證責任減輕〉,《月旦民商法雜誌》,6期,頁5-29。 姚志明(2015),〈RCA事件與疫學因果關係〉,《月旦法學雜誌》,247期,頁21-44。 孫迺翊(2019),〈2017年至2018年社會法發展回顧〉,《臺大法學論叢》,48卷特刊期,頁1761-1798。 曾士哲(2010),〈談預防接種受害補償救濟制度〉,《日新司法》,9期,頁115-121。 許育典(2003),〈社會國〉,《月旦法學教室》,12期,頁38-43。 楊淑文(2004),〈從特定類型之實務見解觀察舉證責任分配之判斷標準(上)〉,《臺灣本土法學雜誌》,60期,頁49-63。 廖子駒、張育綾、邱千芳、鄭安華(2018),〈各國預防接種受害救濟制度因果關係與給付項目之比較〉,《疫情報導》,34卷22期,頁351-360。 劉宏恩(2021),〈EUA疫苗注射後不良反應之因果關係認定與受害救濟〉,《月旦醫事法報告),61期,頁121-128。 鍾秉正(2017),〈從社會補償法理看藥害救濟──兼評臺北高等行政法院一○四年度訴更二字第三十號判決〉,《月旦法學雜誌》,265期,頁219-233。 Uwe Blaurock(著),姚志明(譯)(2000),〈法規保護目的理論〉,《國立中正大學法學集刊》,3期,頁237-253。 二、日文部分 專書 西埜章(1995),《予防接種と法》,東京:一粒社。 三、英文部分 專書 American Psychiatric Association (2013). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5®) (2016 updateth ed.). London, England: American Psychiatric Publishing. CIOMS/WHO Working Group on Vaccine Pharmacovigilance (2012). Definition and Application of Terms for Vaccine Pharmacovigilance: Report of CIOMS/WHO Working Group on Vaccine Pharmacovigilance. World Health Organization. Giesecke, J. (2017). Modern infectious disease epidemiology: Third edition (2nd ednd ed.). New York, NY: CRC Press. Guyatt, G. (2015). Users' Guides to the Medical Literature: Essentials of Evidence-Based Clinical Practice, Third Edition (2016 updateth ed.). London,England: McGraw-Hill Education. Institute of Medicine. 2012. Adverse Effects of Vaccines: Evidence and Causality. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13164. Khoury, L. (2006). Uncertain Causation in Medical Liability (2nd ednd ed.). New York, NY: Bloomsbury Academic. Lieb, R. (2013). Population-Based Study. In M. D. Gellman, & J. R. Turner (Eds.),Encyclopedia of Behavioral Medicine (2nd ednd ed., pp. 1507-1508). New York, NY: Springer New York. WHO (2019). Causality assessment of an adverse event following immunization (AEFI): user manual for the revised WHO classification (2nd ed., 2019 updatend ed.). Geneva, England: World Health Organization. -------- (2014). Global manual on surveillance of adverse events following immunization (2016 updateth ed.). London, England: World Health Organization. Stratton, K., Ford, A., Rusch, E., Clayton, E. W., Committee to Review Adverse Effects of Vaccines, & Institute of Medicine (Eds.). (2011). Adverse Effects of Vaccines: Evidence and Causality. National Academies Press (US). Straus, S., Glasziou, P., Richardson, W., & Haynes, R. (2018). Evidence-Based Medicine E-Book: How to Practice and Teach EBM (2nd ednd ed.). Geneva, England: Elsevier Health Sciences. Wackerly, D., Mendenhall, W., & Scheaffer, R. (2008). Mathematical Statistics with Applications (2nd ednd ed.). Geneva, England: Thomson Brooks/Cole. 期刊論文 Armstrong, J.S. Peer review for journals: Evidence on quality control, fairness, and innovation. SCI ENG ETHICS 3, 63–84 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-997-0017-3 Bero, L., & Rennie, D. (1995). The Cochrane Collaboration. Preparing, maintaining, and disseminating systematic reviews of the effects of health care. JAMA, 274(24), 1935–1938. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.274.24.1935 Bingham, P., Verlander, N. Q., & Cheal, M. J. (2004). John Snow, William Farr and the 1849 outbreak of cholera that affected London: a reworking of the data highlights the importance of the water supply. Public health, 118(6), 387–394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2004.05.007 Bonhoeffer, J., Kohl, K., Chen, R., Duclos, P., Heijbel, H., Heininger, U., Jefferson, T., & Loupi, E. (2002). The Brighton Collaboration: addressing the need for standardized case definitions of adverse events following immunization (AEFI). Vaccine, 21(3-4), 298–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0264-410x(02)00449-8 Cook, K. M., & Evans, G. (2011). The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Pediatrics, 127 Suppl 1, S74–S77. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2010-1722K Dahiru T. (2008). P - value, a true test of statistical significance? A cautionary note. Annals of Ibadan postgraduate medicine, 6(1), 21–26. https://doi.org/10.4314/aipm.v6i1.64038 Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group (1992). Evidence-based medicine. A new approach to teaching the practice of medicine. JAMA, 268(17), 2420–2425. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1992.03490170092032 Fedak, K. M., Bernal, A., Capshaw, Z. A., & Gross, S. (2015). Applying the Bradford Hill criteria in the 21st century: how data integration has changed causal inference in molecular epidemiology. Emerging themes in epidemiology, 12, 14.https://doi.org/10.1186/s12982-015-0037-4 Fernandez, A., Sturmberg, J., Lukersmith, S., Madden, R., Torkfar, G., Colagiuri, R., & Salvador-Carulla, L. (2015). Evidence-based medicine: is it a bridge too far?. Health research policy and systems, 13, 66. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-015-0057-0 Fine, P., Eames, K., & Heymann, D. L. (2011). "Herd immunity": a rough guide. Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, 52(7), 911–916. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/cir007 Fisher, A. J., Medaglia, J. D., & Jeronimus, B. F. (2018). Lack of group-to-individual generalizability is a threat to human subjects research. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 115(27), E6106–E6115. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1711978115 Ghadessi, M., Tang, R., Zhou, J., Liu, R., Wang, C., Toyoizumi, K., Mei, C., Zhang, L., Deng, C. Q., & Beckman, R. A. (2020). A roadmap to using historical controls in clinical trials - by Drug Information Association Adaptive Design Scientific Working Group (DIA-ADSWG). Orphanet journal of rare diseases, 15(1), 69. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13023-020-1332-x Grimes, D. A., & Schulz, K. F. (2002). Descriptive studies: what they can and cannot do. Lancet (London, England), 359(9301), 145–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(02)07373-7 Glasgow, R. E., Green, L. W., Klesges, L. M., Abrams, D. B., Fisher, E. B., Goldstein, M. G., Hayman, L. L., Ockene, J. K., & Orleans, C. T. (2006). External validity: we need to do more. Annals of behavioral medicine : a publication of the Society of Behavioral Medicine, 31(2), 105–108. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324796abm3102_1 Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety (GACVS), & WHO secretariat (2009). Global safety of vaccines: strengthening systems for monitoring, management and the role of GACVS. Expert review of vaccines, 8(6), 705–716. https://doi.org/10.1586/erv.09.40 Greinacher, A., Thiele, T., Warkentin, T. E., Weisser, K., Kyrle, P. A., & Eichinger, S. (2021). Thrombotic Thrombocytopenia after ChAdOx1 nCov-19 Vaccination. The New England journal of medicine, 384(22), 2092–2101. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2104840 Halsey, N. A., Edwards, K. M., Dekker, C. L., Klein, N. P., Baxter, R., Larussa, P., Marchant, C., Slade, B., Vellozzi, C., & Causality Working Group of the Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment network (2012). Algorithm to assess causality after individual adverse events following immunizations. Vaccine, 30(39), 5791–5798. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2012.04.005 HILL A. B. (1965). The Environment and Disease: Association or Causation?. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine, 58(5), 295–300. Kamat, A. M., & Lamm, D. L. (2000). Intravesical therapy for bladder cancer. Urology, 55(2), 161–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0090-4295(99)00463-x Kaptchuk T. J. (2001). The double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial: gold standard or golden calf?. Journal of clinical epidemiology, 54(6), 541–549. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0895-4356(00)00347-4 Krause, P. R., & Gruber, M. F. (2020). Emergency Use Authorization of Covid Vaccines - Safety and Efficacy Follow-up Considerations. The New England journal of medicine, 383(19), e107. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp2031373 Matarese, G., La Cava, A., & Horvath, T. L. (2012). In vivo veritas, in vitro artificia. Trends in molecular medicine, 18(8), 439–442. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molmed.2012.05.003 Murad, M. H., Sultan, S., Haffar, S., & Bazerbachi, F. (2018). Methodological quality and synthesis of case series and case reports. BMJ evidence-based medicine, 23(2), 60–63. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjebm-2017-110853 Nissen, T., & Wynn, R. (2014). The clinical case report: a review of its merits and limitations. BMC research notes, 7, 264. https://doi.org/10.1186/1756-0500-7-264 Ogawara, K., Kuwabara, S., Mori, M., Hattori, T., Koga, M., & Yuki, N. (2000). Axonal Guillain-Barré syndrome: relation to anti-ganglioside antibodies and Campylobacter jejuni infection in Japan. Annals of neurology, 48(4), 624–631. Peh, W. C., & Ng, K. H. (2010). Writing a case report. Singapore medical journal, 51(1), 10–14. Pearl, J. (2004). Causal Inference in Statistics: An Overview. Statistics Surveys, 3(1), 96-146. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.33.070203.144008 Pollard, J. D., & Selby, G. (1978). Relapsing neuropathy due to tetanus toxoid. Report of a case. Journal of the neurological sciences, 37(1-2), 113–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-510x(78)90232-0 Rashid, H., Khandaker, G., & Booy, R. (2012). Vaccination and herd immunity: what more do we know?. Current opinion in infectious diseases, 25(3), 243–249. https://doi.org/10.1097/QCO.0b013e328352f727 Richardson, W. S., Wilson, M. C., Nishikawa, J., & Hayward, R. S. (1995). The well-built clinical question: a key to evidence-based decisions. ACP journal club, 123(3), A12–A13. Rodger, A. J., Cambiano, V., Bruun, T., Vernazza, P., Collins, S., Degen, O., Corbelli, G. M., Estrada, V., Geretti, A. M., Beloukas, A., Raben, D., Coll, P., Antinori, A., Nwokolo, N., Rieger, A., Prins, J. M., Blaxhult, A., Weber, R., Van Eeden, A., Brockmeyer, N. H., … PARTNER Study Group (2019). Risk of HIV transmission through condomless sex in serodifferent gay couples with the HIV-positive partner taking suppressive antiretroviral therapy (PARTNER): final results of a multicentre, prospective, observational study. Lancet (London, England), 393(10189), 2428–2438. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(19)30418-0 Sackett, D. L., Rosenberg, W. M., Gray, J. A., Haynes, R. B., & Richardson, W. S. (1996). Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't. BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 312(7023), 71–72. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.312.7023.71 Sorokowski, P., Kulczycki, E., Sorokowska, A., & Pisanski, K. (2017). Predatory journals recruit fake editor. Nature, 543(7646), 481–483. https://doi.org/10.1038/543481a Sun, X., Briel, M., Walter, S. D., & Guyatt, G. H. (2010). Is a subgroup effect believable? Updating criteria to evaluate the credibility of subgroup analyses. BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 340, c117. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c117 Swanson, J. A., Schmitz, D., & Chung, K. C. (2010). How to practice evidence-based medicine. Plastic and reconstructive surgery, 126(1), 286–294. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181dc54ee 四、德文部分 專書 Kindhäuser, U./Zimmermann, T.(2020). Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil, (9. Aufl.). Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft. | - |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/87263 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 預防接種之推行除預防個體感染疾病,在公共衛生上亦能防治傳染病,杜絕傳染病之發生、傳染和蔓延。基於特別犧牲及社會安全之實現,傳染病防制法第30條規定了「預防接種受害救濟」制度,對於因預防接種之不良事件而蒙受損害者提供人道的社會補償。現行法「預防接種受害救濟基金徵收及審議辦法」將受害情形與疫苗是否具有因果關係之判斷方式明文化,並以「關聯性」稱之,以取代「因果關係」。
上開因果架構參考自世界衛生組織出版之「預防接種不良事件因果關係評估準則」,該架構基於流行病學及醫學實證文獻為中心發展。然而此一判斷方法並未考量預防接種受害救濟中特別犧牲以及社會補償之法規意旨,亦與法院所採行之因果關係架構──如:相當因果關係、疫學因果關係──不同。 本研究詳盡地介紹預防接種受害救濟因果評估中的實證醫學、「預防接種不良事件因果關係評估準則」之內容、整理出此類因果關係中之三要件,並再訪法學上因果關係之架構以及爬梳法院穩定之實務見解(諸如:預防接種不良事件因果關係評估準則之承認、判斷餘地之適用、客觀舉證責任之轉換)。 本研究亦對實體法、程序事項提出具體可操作之修正,以兼顧實證醫學及法規目的之實踐。第一,雖然預防接種受害救濟訴訟中有判斷餘地之適用,惟參考司法院釋字第533號解釋意旨,應提高審查密度,並進行形式審查;第二,不宜過度嚴格檢視文獻評讀,以使醫學實證文獻得適切地建立抽象因果關係;第三,宜將現行法中醫學實證之定義擴張及於個案報告,以緩和過於嚴格之因果架構,使本就罕見之不良事件受害者得以接受救濟(而法院應理解,個案報告已幾是醫學實證及形式審查之極限);第四,預防接種不良事件因果關係評估準則以及流行病學、實證醫學中之否證原則,仍有排除因果關係存在之適用空間。 綜上所述,本研究希望透過上開見解,適切平衡公共衛生政策之目的、法規本旨及實證醫學觀點,在救濟中以科際整合之手法推進並構築一個平衡的因果關係架構。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | The Vaccination program directly benefits immunized individuals from infectious diseases, and indirectly benefits unimmunized individuals through community immunity. Consequently, vaccination programs guard against occurrence, infection and spread of communicable diseases in terms of public health. In accordance with Article 30 of the Communicable Disease Control Act, Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) provides humanitarian relief compensation for victims suffering from adverse event due to vaccination on the basis of two conceptions: special sacrifice and social security. The existing Regulation, Regulations Governing Collection and Review of Vaccine Injury Compensation Fund, regulates the method of causality assessment between vaccination and alleged injury (§13), adopting the term of “association” instead of causality or causation.
The written causation stated above refer to the publication of World Health Organization (WHO): “Causality assessment of an adverse event following immunization (AEFI).” Nevertheless, the methodology of causality assessment in the publication is based on epidemiology and evidence-based medicine (EBM). The causality assessment doesn’t incorporate purposes of VICP, i.e., the assessment in the Regulation did not ensure adequate and sufficient consideration to special sacrifice and social compensation. Furthermore, there are substantial disparities between the causality assessment and causation theories admitted by our Court, e.g., adequate causation theory or epidemiologic causation theory. This study comprehensively introduces the concepts of evidence-based medicine in the causality assessment of VICP and the content of “Causality assessment of an adverse event following immunization (AEFI),” recapitulating the three constituent elements of causation theory in VICP as well. In addition, the study provides holistic reviews of causation theories admitted by the Court and principles established in the VICP judgements (e.g.,” margin of appreciation,” reverse burden of proof, and the admission of WHO’s causality assessment). To take both purposes of VICP and evidence-based practice into account, this research proposes several amendments to the Regulation and the procedural process. (1) Notwithstanding the application of “margin of appreciation” has been admitted by the Court in the VICP litigations, in accordance with the terms of reference of Judicial Yuan Constitutional Interpretation No. 533, the Court is supposed to adopt a more rigorous standard of judicial review by conducting formality examination in VICP litigations. (2) During the practice of EBM, the step of appraising the evidence ought to be performed fairly and properly to allow the abstract causation being established reasonably. (3) Our government shall broaden the current definition of “medical evidence” in the Regulation to include “case report.” By adopting a more lenient standard, more rare cases suffering from AEFI could become eligible for relief compensation. And the Court shall notice that the case report is almost the limit of medical evidence and formality examination in the VICP litigations. (4) The principle of refutation in EBM, epidemiology and WHO’s causality assessment remains applicable to disconfirm the existence of causation in far-fetched cases. In conclusion, this study proposes legal interpretations stated above, aiming to resolve the disagreements between public health policies, purposes of VICP and evidence-based practice. Via interdisciplinary methodology, ultimately, this research advances and constructs a well-balanced causation theory in administrative remedy of VICP. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Submitted by admin ntu (admin@lib.ntu.edu.tw) on 2023-05-18T16:42:36Z No. of bitstreams: 0 | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2023-05-18T16:42:36Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 論文口試委員審定書 i
謝辭 ii 中文摘要 ix Abstract in English xi 簡目 xiv 詳目 xv 圖目錄 xx 表目錄 xx 附錄目錄 xx 第一章 緒論 1 第一節 研究動機 1 第二節 研究範圍與方法 4 壹、研究範圍 4 貳、研究方法 5 一、文獻分析法 5 二、歸納整理法 5 第三節 研究架構 6 第二章 我國預防接種受害救濟制度 9 第一節 我國預防接種受害救濟制度簡介 9 壹、請求權基礎與授權基礎 9 貳、請求權人以及請求之要件 10 參、基金來源 11 肆、給付類型與救濟之申請 12 伍、救濟之審議 13 陸、救濟給付之範圍 13 柒、後續之救濟 14 第二節 我國預防接種受害救濟制度之性質 16 壹、損害賠償說 17 一、公法上損害賠償說──國家賠償理論 17 二、私法上損害賠償說──侵權行為理論 19 三、附論:損害賠償之填補問題 20 貳、損失補償說 21 一、特別犧牲理論 22 二、社會法理論 26 參、其他:責任保險說 28 肆、小結 29 第三節 預防接種受害救濟之因果關係及舉證 33 壹、關聯性 33 貳、舉證 35 第三章 法規中「關聯性」之內涵及解釋 36 第一節 「關聯性」中之實證醫學 36 壹、實證醫學簡介 36 貳、定義問題與搜尋最佳證據 37 參、文獻評讀 42 一、有效性 42 二、重要性 45 肆、小結 49 第二節 「關聯性」規範訂立之參考文獻 52 壹、AEFI因果關係評估 52 貳、AEFI因果關係評估的層次與其科學基礎 53 一、群體層次 53 二、個體層次 54 三、跡象評估層次 56 參、因果評估的步驟以及流程 56 一、適格性 57 二、檢核表 57 三、流程圖(Algorithm) 62 四、分類 64 肆、AEFI因果評估之小結 65 第三節 比較法、現行法與世界衛生組織評估準則之異同 66 壹、比較法與世界衛生組織評估準則 66 貳、現行法與世界衛生組織評估準則 68 參、小結 73 第四章 「因果關係」於流行病學與法學之差異 75 第一節 醫學與流行病學上因果關係之內涵 75 壹、猜測與否證 75 貳、醫學與流行病學上的相關與因果 76 一、因果關係判斷基準 77 (一)必要基準 78 (二)次必要基準 78 (三)其他基準 80 二、非因果性的統計相關 82 參、小結 83 第二節 法學上因果關係之內涵 86 壹、相當因果關係 87 一、條件關係 89 二、相當性 90 三、法規目的理論 91 貳、對傳統法學上因果關係之批評與疫學因果關係 92 一、法學上因果關係的困境 92 二、疫學因果關係 94 (一)疫學因果關係──學說發展 94 (二)疫學因果關係──實務見解 98 (三)疫學因果關係與預防接種受害救濟訴訟 101 參、附論:預防接種受害救濟訴訟中之舉證責任──實務見解 104 一、否定說 106 二、肯定說──顯失公平 107 三、肯定說──法律別有規定 110 第三節 小結 113 第五章 預防接種受害救濟訴訟實務分析 119 第一節 案例分析:HPV疫苗疑致幼年型關節炎案 119 壹、臺北高等行政法院判決109年度訴字第418號判決評析 119 一、事實概要 119 二、判決主文 119 三、原告主張 120 四、被告抗辯 121 五、法院意旨 122 六、判決分析 131 (一)受害救濟中責任範圍因果不適用民法損害賠償之標準 131 (二)受害救濟訴訟中客觀舉證責任分配之倒置 132 (三)審議小組之結論有判斷餘地之適用 133 (四)承認WHO「預防接種不良事件因果關係評估準則」 135 第二節 建議及小結 138 壹、法院審查密度之提高與形式審查 138 貳、因果關係之緩和 140 一、文獻評讀之軟化 140 二、法規本旨之實現 141 三、實證醫學證據等級之擴張 142 四、實證醫學證據等級擴張之邊境線 143 五、實證醫學證據等級擴張後之諸問題 146 第六章 結論 151 參考文獻 156 附錄 167 | - |
dc.language.iso | zh_TW | - |
dc.title | 預防接種受害救濟中的因果關係 | zh_TW |
dc.title | The Causation in Administrative Remedy of National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program | en |
dc.type | Thesis | - |
dc.date.schoolyear | 111-1 | - |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | - |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 吳全峰;孫迺翊 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | Chuan-Feng Wu;Naiyi Sun | en |
dc.subject.keyword | 預防接種受害救濟,疫苗,不良事件,因果關係,疫學因果關係,舉證責任轉換,特別犧牲,社會補償,實證醫學,傳染病防治, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | Vaccine Injury Compensation,Immunization,Adverse Event,Causation,Epidemiologic Causation Theory,Reverse Burden of Proof,Special Sacrifice,Social Compensation,Evidence-based Medicine,Communicable Disease Control, | en |
dc.relation.page | 175 | - |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU202300531 | - |
dc.rights.note | 未授權 | - |
dc.date.accepted | 2023-02-17 | - |
dc.contributor.author-college | 法律學院 | - |
dc.contributor.author-dept | 法律學系 | - |
顯示於系所單位: | 法律學系 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
ntu-111-1.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 5.82 MB | Adobe PDF |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。