| Abstrakt: |
The medical review committee pointed out in the appraisal testimonial that what medical appraisals have always called customary medical practice includes medical level and related objective conditions, and has considered whether doctors have fulfilled their medical standards of care and is not just a general minimum standard for medical treatment. This case occurred on the night of the second day of the long holidays of Chinese Lunar New Year in 2007. The Supreme Court held that the defendant physicians did follow the Taiwanese version of the "Treatment Guidelines for Mild and Severe Head Injury" and "Mild Head Injury undergoing Computed Tomography Examination Guidelines" announced at 2006. These guidelines were modified from those of the USA or European countries announced at 2004. The standards of care that Supreme Court followed should be classified as national standards, but actually world standards instead. The judgment of the Court of Final Appeal said that physicians in the emergency room complied with customary medical practice, had fulfilled the duty of due care required by the medical level of medical center, and had not exceeded reasonable professional clinical discretion, let alone a major medical defect, and they were not at fault for prescribing medical treatment. The judgments of the significance of the theory of major medical defects in German law must rely on the investigation of expert evidence. In its judgment, the Court of Final Appeal held that if a doctor's medical behavior complies with customary medical practice, and the victim fails to provide evidence to prove that the doctor made any negligence during the medical behaviors, it is difficult to recognize that the doctor has committed an unlawful tort. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
