查詢結果分析
相關文獻
- 急性會厭炎於緊急呼吸道處置之注意義務
- 醫療過失引用疫學因果關係說之探討
- 論醫療過失事件之因果關係--以呼吸道疾病的醫療處置與因果關係的判斷建構為中心
- 缺乏因果關係--最高法院99年度臺上字第6129號刑事判決評析
- 兒科醫療糾紛鑑定案例及判決解析--披著感冒羊皮的殺手:心肌炎
- 亂無章法的醫療過失案件判決論證--評析臺灣高等法院98年度上易字第2680號刑事判決
- 醫療過失因果關係判斷之研究
- 「誤診」若不具有「客觀可避免性」,即已確定不犯罪--最高法院九十八年臺上字第六一○號刑事判決
- 病患手術後成為植物人,進而死亡的損害賠償責任--最高法院100年度臺上字第1214號判決評釋
- 醫療過失中的因果關係:從邱小妹人球案談起
頁籤選單縮合
| 題 名 | 急性會厭炎於緊急呼吸道處置之注意義務=Duty of Care for Emergent Airway Management during Acute Epiglottitis |
|---|---|
| 作 者 | 黃浥昕; | 書刊名 | 月旦醫事法報告 |
| 卷 期 | 94 2024.08[民113.08] |
| 頁 次 | 頁133-141 |
| 分類號 | 419.49 |
| 關鍵詞 | 因果關係; 插管; 經皮氣管切開術; 環甲膜切開術; 醫療過失; causality; intubation; percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy; medical negligence; surgical cricothyroidotomy; |
| 語 文 | 中文(Chinese) |
| DOI | 10.53106/241553062024080094007 |
| 中文摘要 | 原告X1罹患急性會厭炎,於被告Y醫院接受緊急插管處置。惟被告醫師刺入第2∼3氣管環間位置,而非環甲膜切開術應刺入之環甲膜;且手術期間原告X1自行拔管而出血,被告醫師在未觀察清楚聲門與喉蓋位置,仍盲目插管。此時原告X1呼吸心跳停止,經急救後因缺氧性病變陷入植物人狀態。原告X1與其父母向被告Y醫院請求損害賠償。法院認為本件並無施用經皮氣管切開術的特殊狀況,且被告醫師並不熟悉該手術,故有過失;若被告醫師正確施用環甲膜切開術,即使X1自行拔管也不會失血過多,因此被告醫師之過失與X1之損害間有因果關係。 |
| 英文摘要 | Plaintiff X1 suffered from acute epiglottitis and underwent emergency intubation at hospital Y as a defendant. However, the defendant physician inserted the tube between the 2nd and 3rd tracheal rings instead of the cricothyroid membrane, which should have been inserted during the cricothyroidotomy; and during the operation, plaintiff X1 pulled out the tube by himself and bled, and the defendant doctor inserted the tube blindly without clearly observing the position of the vocal cords and the laryngeal lid. At that time, Plaintiff X1's respiration and heartbeat stopped, and after the first aid, he fell into a vegetative state due to hypoxic lesions. Plaintiff X1 and his parents sought damage from defendant Y. The court held that there was no special circumstance in which the percutaneous tracheotomy was performed and the defendant physician was unfamiliar with the procedure and therefore negligent; if the defendant physician had performed the cricothyrotomy correctly, X1 would not have lost too much blood even if he had extubated himself, and therefore there was a causal relationship between the defendant physician negligence and X1's injuries. |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。