Szewczyk M
Uniwersytet Jagielloński, Katedra Prawa Karnego, Kraków.
Folia Med Cracov. 1998;39(3-4):97-120.
The question of the physician's liability, both that of civil as well as penal law nature--is always emotionally approached. Dynamic development of medical and biological sciences as well as technics is the cause of progress but it also gives rise to the increase of hazards or abuses in medical therapy. If we speak of the therapeutic intervention being originally legal we mean that it is carried out in compliance with the principles of medical art. In such circumstances, even though the intervention resulted in negative effects, the intervening physician cannot be made penally liable. Civil law liability, in its turn, may have either ex contractu or ex delictu basis. When the general prerequisites of this kind of liability are present, the intervening physician (Art. 353 or 415 of Civil Code) or the State Treasury (Art. 417 of Civil Code) may be made liable for causing damage, joint and several liability of the physician and the Treasury being also possible (Art. 420 of Civil Code). The carrying out of therapeutic intervention without the law required consent of the patient may lead--on the basis of Polish law--to the physician's civil law liability for the infringement of the patient's personal interests even though the intervention ended in success (Articles 23 and 24 of Civil Code). From the point of view of Polish penal law such situation may cause the physician's penal liability for the offence against freedom (Art. 192 of Penal Code). The euthanatic homicide should be, and in Polish law, is an offence. Considering the potential abuses arising from making the euthanasia legal, penal law whose major function is that of the guarantee nature, must ensure safeguards vis-à-vis life to the utmost limit. Polish Legislator shows, however, full understanding of the extremely difficult and conflict-generating situation in which the individual committing euthanatic homicide may find himself. Hence, in section 2 of Art. 150 of Penal Code the Legislator declared that "in exceptional, particularly justified cases, the Court may apply extraordinary mitigation of penalty or even depart at all from meeting out the penalty". Law regulations cannot however solve problems whose moral and ethical dimension exceeds sometimes that limited to law only. Hence in plenty of cases the physicians are left to themselves with the "verdicts" produced by their own conscience. And indeed, these verdicts may many a time be more severe than the decision of the Court because the physicians cannot appeal from them.
医生的责任问题,无论是民法性质还是刑法性质的,总是会引发情绪化的探讨。医学、生物科学以及技术的动态发展是进步的原因,但也导致了医疗治疗中风险或滥用行为的增加。如果我们说治疗干预原本是合法的,我们的意思是它是按照医学技艺的原则进行的。在这种情况下,即使干预产生了负面影响,实施干预的医生也不会承担刑事责任。民法责任则可能基于合同或侵权。当存在这种责任的一般前提时,实施干预的医生(《民法典》第353条或第415条)或国家财政(《民法典》第417条)可能要对造成的损害承担责任,医生和财政部门也可能承担连带责任(《民法典》第420条)。未经患者依法同意实施治疗干预,根据波兰法律,即使干预成功,医生也可能因侵犯患者个人利益而承担民法责任(《民法典》第23条和第24条)。从波兰刑法的角度来看,这种情况可能导致医生因侵犯自由罪而承担刑事责任(《刑法典》第192条)。安乐死杀人在波兰法律中应该是,而且确实是一种犯罪。考虑到使安乐死合法化可能产生的潜在滥用行为,主要具有保障性质的刑法必须最大限度地确保对生命的保护。然而,波兰立法者充分理解实施安乐死杀人的个人可能面临的极其困难且引发冲突的情况。因此,在《刑法典》第150条第2款中,立法者宣称“在特殊的、特别有正当理由的情况下,法院可以适用特别减轻处罚,甚至完全免除处罚”。然而,法律法规有时无法解决那些道德和伦理层面超出法律范畴的问题。因此,在很多情况下,医生只能依靠自己良心做出的“裁决”。事实上,这些裁决很多时候可能比法院的判决更严厉,因为医生无法对其提出上诉。