Abstract
Important Point 1. Negligence Although intentional neglience(faute intentionelle) is discriminated from unintentional negligence(faute non intentionelle) in France, it would hardly be significant to study if this discrimination is applicable under Japanese Civil Law Act. 2. Non-fulfillment of obligation The French law regards liability by medical malpractice as liability arising from non-fulfuillment of obligation. Unlike the Japanese law which usually grasps liability by medical malpractice as that by illegal act, the French view strongly supports my theory. However, the issue of the specific property and why most cases can settled as liability by non-fulillment of obligation in France should be studied. 3. Selection of Patients The U.S.A. and France allow doctors to select patients. Under those circumstances, though the patients who may meet the demand of doctors can obtain treatment, those who do not are forced to visit doctors one after another so that curable diseases of them may not be cured. Especially, doctors are even allowed to select emergency cases in France. This would have caused a serious problem if it weren't for governmental methods of relieving patients, but it appears things go well in that country where the social security system is established. 4. Consent In the course of medical treatment which is commenced based on the existence of a medical contract, the patients' consent is required in employing new drugs or surgical methods, especially strictly in the U.S.A. and France. The fact that patients' consent held great weight in recent judgments in Japan is significant in that such Judgments attach importance to patients' discretion.
