《中华人民共和国民法典》体系下人体试验侵权损害赔偿路径研究

Study on the Path to Compensation for Tort Damages for Human Experimentation under the Civil Code System

人体试验侵权不能完全等同于医疗损害侵权。在《中华人民共和国民法典》侵权责任编的解释论视角下,探寻人体试验侵权损害赔偿的路径有两种:一是治疗性人体试验侵权可以按照医疗损害侵权处理;二是非治疗性人体试验侵权只能依据一般侵权条款处理。然而,二者涉及的法律主体类似,按照不同的请求权基础进行规制,是否具有正当性还需进一步论证。此外,人体试验具有常规诊疗所不具备的高风险性、更高的知情同意标准以及更难的因果关系认定等特征,使人体试验侵权案件具有一定的特殊性和独立性,《中华人民共和国民法典》现有规定难以对这一问题进行合理解释。为方便人体试验受试者寻求侵权法路径保护自身的合法权益,可以考虑针对人体试验侵权案件设置独立的请求权规范基础,或者在司法解释中明确其与医疗损害责任的异同。

Human trial infringement cannot be completely equivalent to medical damage infringement.From the perspective of the interpretation theory of the tort liability edition of the“Civil Code”,there are two ways for subjects to seek compensation.Firstly,therapeutic human trial infringement can be treated as medical damage tort;secondly,non-therapeutic human trial infringement can only be based on treatment of general infringement clauses.However,regardless of whether it is a therapeutic human trial or a non-therapeutic human trial,the legal subjects are similar,but they are regulated according to completely different rules.Is this reasonable?In addition,subjects in human trials always meet higher risks and need higher standards of informed consent,etc.These aspects make it different from normal medical tort damages.The current“Civil Code”is difficult to provide a reasonable explanation for this issue.To facilitate human trials subjects,seek infringement paths to protect their legitimate rights and interests,we can set up a different basis for the claim or clarify in the judicial interpretation that there are differences and similarities between human trial infringement and medical damage infringement.