Many patients know that the hospital signs the informed consent form to the patient does not mean that the hospital can be exempted from liability after the relevant risks occur, so if the hospital asks the patient to sign a disclaimer, should the hospital be liable for the corresponding damage?
1. What forms of disclaimers are there?
Common disclaimers in practice include "I request surgery, if all unforeseen risks occur, I shall bear the consequences", "I refuse surgery, I shall bear the consequences", "I refuse to transfer to the ICU, I shall bear the consequences", "I request to be discharged, I shall bear the consequences", "I agree to the current ** plan, and all accidents have nothing to do with the hospital", ......Usually these disclaimers are related to making an important choice, and there is a high risk of implementing or not implementing it, and the hospital has the patient or family to sign it in order to avoid legal liability.
2. Is there a legal agreement on the disclaimer?
In fact, as long as it is an adult with normal intelligence, they are unwilling to sign this kind of "self-responsibility" disclaimer, because it is literally known that the hospital is excluding its own responsibility, and in most cases patients or family members are forced to sign it, and the status is also extremely unequal, such as in order to let the hospital carry out surgery or **, persuaded by the hospital's unequal information, financial difficulties, etc., so it is completely autonomous of will? According to Article 1218 of the Civil Code, as long as the hospital is at fault and the patient suffers damages, the hospital will be liable for compensation, and the hospital will not be exempted from fault liability because the patient has signed the disclaimer. Moreover, citizens cannot freely authorize others to dispose of their right to health and life, and even if they do, they are invalid.
3. The disclaimer is not completely invalid.
There may be a doctor friend who says that this disclaimer is completely invalid? No, the "consequences of self-responsibility" in the case of medical damage are invalid, but the statement of the patient or family member on "request, refusal, consent" has legal effect, that is, the ** choice made by the patient has legal effect, and the patient has to bear the risk for his choice, and the hospital is only liable for the damage caused by the fault of diagnosis and treatment when providing the corresponding diagnosis and treatment services, for example, if the patient or family refuses to transfer to the ICU, resulting in the inability to use a ventilator to improve respiratory function and causes the death of the patient, the hospital does not need to be liable. However, when there is a non-invasive ventilator in the general ward and the respiratory function can be improved, the hospital will not use it because the patient is not transferred to the ICU, and the hospital shall be responsible and will not be exempted from liability because the patient signs "bear the consequences".
Fourth, lawyer Lin suggested.
As mentioned earlier, the disclaimer on the choice of ** is legally valid, and the "consequences of self-responsibility" in the case of medical damage has no legal effect, and at the same time, the content of the hospital on the notice about the condition, **plan, alternative** plan, and risks and pros and cons is also legally effective, so when the patient signs this type of informed consent, the part that the patient wants the patient to "bear at his own risk" is the risk caused by the choice, excluding the part of the consequences caused by the hospital's diagnosis and treatment fault. So don't worry about medical damage or medical malpractice that the hospital is not responsible for, sign the sign as soon as possible so that the patient can get it as soon as possible**.