我國近年來，有關因醫療糾紛所衍生的刑事責任問題爭議不斷。本文研究目的係嘗試建構一個合理我國近年來，有關因醫療糾紛所衍生的刑事責任問題爭議不斷。本文研究目的係嘗試建構一個合理的醫療刑事責任歸屬。申言之，本文以醫療法所導出的醫療義務為前提，探究醫事人員的醫療處置與病人病變結果發生之間的因果關係與結果歸責。就病人病變結果發生，若於具體個案中綜合所有主客觀條件，醫事人員對之不具有結果預見可能性或不具有結果可避免性，則此病變結果發生，自始即非屬醫療義務範圍內，醫事人員自無須對該病變結果發生負起刑事責任。至於，醫事人員是否屬已履行醫療義務的方式，並不以單一標準為限，而是以其處置是否屬適當為準。
　　就因果關係及其相關理論方面，本文乃嘗試比較繼受歐陸法系德國刑法的我國刑法理論與英美刑法理論之異同。本文研究結果發現，兩者雖不盡然完全相同，但大體方向上來說，仍有許多相同之處。特別是，在針對醫療刑法問題時，兩者理論發展基礎乃以原創行為人為主所展開，醫事人員的醫療處置介入則淪為配角。在欠缺原創行為人啟動病人病變因果進程情況下，如病患本身或天然災害所引起，則醫事人員的刑事責任歸屬是否仍應依照既有理論操作不無疑問。申言之，依照目前主流看法，因醫療糾紛所衍生的刑事責任多以醫療過失犯罪為主，而即便醫事人員的醫療處置作為與病變結果發生具有條件式因果關係，惟若此病變結果乃係基於「病害」與「醫害」的「向量和」所導致，而醫事人員對於「病害」部分屬無過失，自無結果歸責可言，其應僅就「醫害」部分負起刑事責任。是以，本文探究醫療本質目的乃係為防止病人病變結果發生，嘗試建構攔截性因果關係理論探討醫事人員是否須對病人病變結果發生負起刑事責任。
　　本文架構為：第一章為緒論；第二章簡介醫療行為有別於非醫療行為之適用刑法上之特性；第三章詳述醫療義務概念，並同時釐清醫療義務與其他相關概念有何不同；第四章探討刑法上的因果關係與刑法處理因果關係的範圍；第五章介紹醫療刑事案件之攔截性因果關係概念；第六章為結論與建議。
關鍵詞：醫療義務、注意義務、防果義務、結果因果、結果歸責、攔截性因果關係

In Taiwan, there has been much debate in recent years over the issue of criminal liability for medical malpractice. The purpose of this study is to define a reasonable criminal liability in medical cases. In addition, it discusses the issue of causation between medical treatments and harmful results based on medical duty as a requirement stipulated under medical law. Medical personnel bear no criminal liability for cases, either subjective or objective, with harmful results that are unforeseeable or unavoidable. Moreover, there is no single standard for medical personnel’s performance of duty; only appropriate treatment standards exist.
In terms of the issue of causation, this thesis analyzes the similarities and differences between continental and Anglo-American legal systems. This study found that although these two systems are not exactly the same, they still have many aspects in common; specifically, in medical cases, wherein medical treatment is usually considered as an intervening cause. However, if there is no first defendant, i.e., a patient or natural disaster, which establishes a causal connection between an act and harmful result, it is doubtful to apply these two theories in determining a medical doctor’s criminal liability. Furthermore, most criminal acts committed in medical practice are commonly associated with criminal negligence and in these cases, there are usually harmful results with multiple cause-in-fact. For example, death may have two actual causes; one from patient’s sickness and the other from medical harm. Medical personnel should bear criminal liability only if they are guilty of medical harm. This thesis develops an intervening cause theory to deal with criminal liability for medical malpractice.
This thesis is divided as follows: Chapter Ⅰ is the introduction; Chapter Ⅱ briefly explains the difference between medical treatments and non-medical treatments in criminal law; Chapter Ⅲ discusses the concept of medical duty in detail. The author also attempts to clarify the relationship between medical duty and other related concepts, such as duty of care, duty to act, and informed consent; Chapter Ⅳ describes the issue of causation in criminal law; Chapter Ⅴ introduces an intervening cause theory in medical cases; Chapter Ⅵ concludes the study with pieces of legal advice in dealing with medical cases in criminal law.
Keywords: medical duty, duty of care, duty to act, cause in fact, cause in law, intervening causation