查詢結果分析
相關文獻
- 論自動體外心臟電擊去顫器及心肺復甦術急救之法規範--評緊急醫療救護法第14條之1、第14條之2修正草案
- 臺北市某車行計程車司機心肺復甦術行為意圖及其相關因素探討
- 比較不同心肺復甦術暨自動體外心臟電擊去顫器教學策略之成效
- 消防機關協助國中小教師操作CPR+AED之態度與認知研究--以新北市政府消防局為例
- Safety and Efficacy of Primary Percutaneous Transluminal Coronary Angioplasty for Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by prolonged Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation
- Results and Implications of Active Compression-Decompression Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation in an Emergency Room in Taiwan
- 透析緊急醫療救護法
- 心肺復甦術後循環功能的穩定
- Comparison of Nasal Trauma Associated with Nasopharyngeal Airway Applied by Nurses and Experienced Anesthesiologists
- 復甦術訓練
頁籤選單縮合
| 題 名 | 論自動體外心臟電擊去顫器及心肺復甦術急救之法規範--評緊急醫療救護法第14條之1、第14條之2修正草案=Legal Regulations on Automated External Defibrillator and Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation to Emergency Medical Services |
|---|---|
| 作 者 | 李郁強; 趙俊祥; | 書刊名 | 世新法學 |
| 卷 期 | 7:2 2014.06[民103.06] |
| 頁 次 | 頁287-351 |
| 分類號 | 419.53 |
| 關鍵詞 | 自動體外心臟電擊去顫器; 心肺復甦術; 緊急醫療救護法; Automated external defibrillator; Cardiopulmonary resuscitation; Emergency Medical Services Act; |
| 語 文 | 中文(Chinese) |
| 中文摘要 | 民眾遇到緊急傷病患,常因施救之法律責任而卻步,行政院為消除民眾疑慮及鼓勵民眾對緊急傷病患伸出援手,爰參考外國「善良撒瑪利亞人法」之救人不受罰精神,擬具「緊急醫療救護法第14條之1、第14條之2修正草案」,增訂經公告之公共場所應置必要之緊急救護設備,以及救護人員以外之人使用緊急救護設備或施予急救措施者,適用民法、刑法緊急避難免責之規定。本文認為草案存在著「使用緊急救護設備或施予急救措施」之用語範圍過大、免責規定文義不明、救護人員非執勤期間之免責未納入規範等問題,經探討相關問題後,提出修正建議。 |
| 英文摘要 | People encountering emergency patients often do not dare to rescue them because of the legal liability. To eliminate people’s concern and encourage them to rescue emergency patients, the Executive Yuan takes the foreign “Good Samaritan Law” for reference which is under the spirit not penalized to rescue people, and proposes “Draft of Amendments to the Emergency Medical Services Act, Article 14-1 and Article 14-2” regulating public places be provided with the necessary emergency rescue equipment after proclamation, and non-ambulance personnel using emergency ambulance equipment or giving first aid should be applicable to emergency shelter exemption provisions of civil law and criminal law. This paper maintains that the terms in the draft “ to use emergency ambulance equipment or to give first aid measures” is too broadly used and the meaning of the exemption provisions is not clearly defined and off-duty ambulance personnel’s exemption is not regulated, therefore recommends some amendments to the draft. |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。