查詢結果分析
相關文獻
- 各國預防接種受害救濟制度因果關係與給付項目之比較
- 卡介苗接種受害救濟之審議案例分析
- 我國衛生所及合約醫療院所辦理預防接種業務與申請受害救濟案件分析
- 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
- 德、芬、臺預防接種受害救濟制度比較與省思
- Updates on Vaccine Injury Compensation Program in Taiwan and Program Evaluation
- 預防接種不良事件通報及救濟制度簡介
- 接種卡介苗可能產生骨炎及骨髓炎等罕見嚴重不良反應
- 由美、日經驗檢討我國預防接種救濟制度:從H1N1新型流感疫苗談起
- 我國和美國、日本預防接種受害救濟制度之比較研究
頁籤選單縮合
題 名 | 各國預防接種受害救濟制度因果關係與給付項目之比較=A Comparison of Causal Relationship and Payment Standards in Different Vaccine Injury Compensation Programs |
---|---|
作 者 | 廖子駒; 張育綾; 邱千芳; 鄭安華; | 書刊名 | 疫情報導 |
卷 期 | 34:22 2018.11.20[民107.11.20] |
頁 次 | 頁351-360 |
分類號 | 412.4 |
關鍵詞 | 預防接種; 受害救濟; 因果評估; 補償給付; Immunization; Vaccine injury compensation; Causal relationship; Payment standard; |
語 文 | 中文(Chinese) |
中文摘要 | 預防接種受害救濟制度的設立,除給予面臨疫苗不良反應傷害時求助的管道,更是釐清疑因疫苗導致受害案件與疫苗本身因果關聯之契機。自1961年德國建立全球第一個預防接種受害救濟制度之後,陸續有其他國家以政府或私人機構為行政主體建立此補償機制,各國依循不同的疫苗政策而有分別的救濟核定辦法。在受害事件申請提出至最終核予給付的過程中,主要分為三個環節:預防接種受害救濟制度所涵蓋的疫苗種類及受理範圍、預防接種與疑似不良反應之間的因果關係及確立救濟與否後核予給付的救濟項目,各國均以此架構為本,再個別發展出屬於該國的判定準則。本篇文章回顧疾病管制署自2007年至2016年預防接種受害救濟出國考察報告,針對各國疫苗救濟範圍先行分類,並回顧其中論及疫苗與其疑似不良反應之因果關係判斷依據、給付準則及項目等議題,於比較我國現行制度後給予建議,望能將因果關係認定原則確立,且明確歸納給付項目所包含之救濟內容,待未來受害救濟制度逐步調整時,建立更完備之判斷基準,以求在個人權益及公共利益端取得平衡。 |
英文摘要 | The establishment of Vaccine Injury Compensation Program(VICP) clarifies the causal relationship between vaccine and its probable adverse reactions. Since Germany first established VICP in 1961, other countries also set up the compensation scheme by the government or private institutions subsequently. Each country has its own review regulation according to different policies of vaccination. The process from application to approval of compensation can be divided into three parts: the eligibility of application regarding vaccine types and other relevant conditions of applicants, the causal relationship between vaccination and suspected adverse reaction, and approval of compensation and its contents. Based on similar structure, every country develops its own criteria. We have reviewed the site visit reports regarding VICP from Taiwan Centers for Disease Control from 2007 to 2016, and summarized the issues such as application of vaccinated adverse events, standards of establishing causal relationship, and the payment criteria and contents, and compared programs from other countries with ours. We recommend that the principles and criteria of causality assessment could be explicitly established, and the contents of compensation should be more clarified. In doing so shall we set up an integrated VICP scheme to maintain the balance between individual rights and public benefit. |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。