Earticle

Korea has been recognized as a safe country about the substance abuse, but now is not safe country because there are over 10 thousand drug related offenses in a year since 1999. Seventy percent of them are drug abusers, so Korea government must have stronger political strategies about the prevention and the treatment of the drug abuse. Till now Korea government has focused on the imprisonment rather than the treatment for the drug abusers. So the relapse rates are over 40% among the incarcerated drug abusers. Now we need more treatment strategies and development of treatment methods to decrease the relapse rates. Substance abuse is a brain disease with a chronic relapsing nature and has a bio-psycho-social etiology. So treatment process has three steps, motivation enhancement treatment for substance–free lifestyle, rehabilitation aimed at maximizing multiple aspects of life functioning, and relapse prevention. To improving the treatment strategies the Government must execute the national survey about the substance abuse, enforce a law to operate the drug court and to sentence a treatment order with a probation, and establish a national addiction institute for study and education about the substance abuse.

Medical treatment has great potential for conflict. Even the best-trained doctors can commit medical malpractice that result in continuing physical or mental disabilities or even death. Medical conflicts have been increasing over years. The medical conflicts between patient and medical professionals that result from medical professionals’ mistakes are often fueled by a violation on the pretext of the injuries form medical malpractice and can lead to litigation. The litigation usually cost a lot of money and time. The extension of the litigation period as well as expensive cost and lack of medical knowledge placing a great burden on patients. Alternative Dispute Resolution(ADR) is more efficient than litigation. In 1988, the medical dispute mediation system has been introduces as the Act on Remedy for Damage from Medical Accident and Medical Dispute Mediation by Korean Medical Association came into effect after 23 years of enactment efforts. Medical Dispute Mediation Act(hereinafter referred to as the “MDMA”) has finally entered into force from 8 April 2012. The purpose of the MDMA is to promptly and fairly redress injuries caused by medical malpractice and create a stable environment for medical services of public health or medical professionals by providing for matters regarding the mediation and arbitration of medical disputes(MDMA §1). In an effort to secure the fair, speedy and inexpensive resolution of every malpractice case, the Korea Medical Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Agency(hereinafter referred to as the “K-MEDI”) was established. Following the MDMA, the K-MEDI shall endeavor to ensure the medical dispute mediation or arbitration proceedings are conducted in a prompt, fair, and efficient manner, and patients and medical professionals shall attend proceedings in good faith with mutual trust and understanding when they participate in medical dispute mediation or arbitration proceedings.

Korea Medical Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Agency, “K-MEDI” in abbr. herein-after, is established on Apr. 9, 2012 according to the law cited in the title above for the purpose of settling medical disputes in a prompt, fair and efficient manner. Two special professional organizations are established in K-MEDI, one of them is Medical Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Committee(hereinafter referred to as the “Mediation Committee”) and the other Medical Malpractice Appraisal Board(hereinaf-ter referred to as the “Appraisal Board”), the mission of the latter is to investigate the facts concerning the disputed medical conduct and to research as to and apprai-se whether the medical conduct was negligent and whether a causal relationship exists. Each panel organized in the Mediation Committee or the Appraisal Board shall be comprised of five mediators or appraisers, including necessarily a judge or a prose-cutor respectively and any disputed case regardless of the scale, the importance or the complicacy shall be handled by a panel. As the system is not thought efficient or economic, the number of the members comprising a panel or total members com-prising the Mediation Committee or the Appraisal Board shoud be adjusted, and the process shoud be versified, including the “Rapid Process,” for instance. A petition for the mediation of a medical dispute shall be rejected if the respondent fails to notify K-MEDI of his/her intention to accede to the mediation within 14days from the day on which the petition for the mediation was served(Art. 27 Cl. 7). As the option of an arbitrary decision whether the mediation proceedings shall be commenced or not given to the respondent by the clause is thought unfair, making the process unstable, and moreover, diminishing the purpose of the system established by the law cited above for solving the medical disputes, the clause shoud be amended not to allow the respondent the option of such an arbitrary deci-sion. K-MEDI shall conduct the “Program for Compensation of Medical Accidents”(Art 46) according to which unavoidable injuries caused by the medical accidents in the cour-se of childbirth and the “Advances for Damages”(Art. 47) that are the compensa- ting moneys paid to victims in medical malpractice cases who fail to receive money at all or partly from the operator or the professional of a public health or medical institution although he/she has a final and conclusive right to be paid by them. Some operators or professionals of such institutions claim that both the programs violate their fundamental rights assured by the constitution, and that it be a justifica-tion of refusal to accede to the mediation. As any of the programs needs not to be conducted by K-MEDI, it may be a proper solution to change the conductor of the programs to avoid the unproductive controversy. (The expression of the title and the contents of the Act is cited from www.klre.re.kr.)

After several bills for the reasonable medical dispute resolution had been proposed for over twenty years, “Act on Remedy for Damage from Medical Accident and Medical Dispute Mediation” was eventually enacted on April 7, 2011 and came into effect from April 8, 2012. This study evaluates the achievements and results of the past year, suggesting the future improvements or tasks. The main issue of Act on Medical Dispute Mediation is Korea Medical Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Agency. Therefore, the success of the Act depends on the outcomes of Korea Medical Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Agency. Although the Act has been enforced for only one year, this paper examines the outcomes of the Agency with limited materials for its development. Korea Medical Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Agency was established for rapid, fair, and effective medical dispute resolution. Thus, the evaluation of the performances of the Agency is based on the 1) rapidness, 2) fairness, and 3) effectiveness of the dispute resolution. To sum up, the system earned positive evaluations as for the rapidness and fairness, but some problems were indicated with regard to the effectiveness. As the system of medical dispute mediation and arbitration in Korea has no parallel in the world, other countries show many interests in it. The rapid and fair medical dispute resolution is of benefit in both patients and medical institutes and decreases social costs. As the Act had a difficult passage through Parliament, it should be maintained and improved continuously.

In der vorliegenden Arbeit geht es um die vergleichende Betrachtung von deutschen Urteilen OLG München, Urt. v. 21. 4. 2011 - Az. 1 U 2363/10; BGH, Urt. v. 22. 5. 2012 - VI ZR 157/11) und einer Reihe von koreanischen Urteilen im Bereich des Arzthaftungsrechts. Sie behandelt die Kausalität von Tatbestand und Rechtswidrigkeitszusammenhang in der normativen Haftungszurechung. In Korea gilt die sog. Adäquanztheorie noch entscheidend als bewertendes Zurechnungskriterium – sogar manchmal als umgangssprachliches Homonym im Sinne der Verhältnismäßigkeit angewendet -, die dogmengeschichtlich von Deutschland übernommen wurde. Doch wie aus den deutschen Urteilen ersichtlich, ist sie dort schon überwunden. Die Ergebnisse der betrffenden koreanischen Urteile sind zwar nicht unbillig, deren Urteilsbegründungen aber theoretisch bzw. praktisch nicht überzeugend. Nach allgemeiner Ansicht kommt es vielmehr auf den Schutzzweck an, der auch bei der Anwendung des § 393 KBGB gelten kann. Schließlich würde die Übertragung des praxisgerechten Lösungsansatzes in deutschen Urteilen auf rechtsvergleichende Weise dazu beitragen, die Zivilrechtspraxis in der koreanischen Justiz nachvollziehbarer machen.

The concept of expectation rights considers 'the expectation' that the patient should be given proper medical treatment as the benefit and protection of the law, so it would be the benefit and protection of the law due to personal rights different from 'the legal principle that has the possibility to a considerable extent' being in an extension of life and body. However, the problem how the patient's expectation of medical service sets up in order to make it the benefit and protection of the law would be still left in the vague concept of the patient's 'expectation', thus, in the first place, the medical practice following formed medical standard in every particular medical institutes should be the standard because these medical services are normally within a range of the patients' expectations. In addition, it should be naturally constituted as mental profit to get the subjective circumstances such as 'the patient's expectation' to be an object, and also, different from the profit and protection of the law such as life and body that should be absolutely protected, the origin of violation behavior should be regarded simultaneously to define the denotation of expectation rights. Therefore, the expectation rights violations would be problematic in case it fails to reach the medical standard that is expected for common doctors to practice properly. This is the concept of expectation rights that gets subjective matters such as the patient's expectation to be objectivity as medical practices that can be expected by generalized abstract doctors. This standard should be defined as the minimum standard that is naturally expected for doctors to practice, different from medical standard that decides the level of doctors.

There is the limit of the traditional legal hermeneutics and fragmentary or individual theoretical legal approach to suggest the desirable solution of Korean health care law system to have many issues. Law & politics research is the legal research method to suggest the resonable understanding and seeking the measures through various approach, decide and evaluate that the legal methods can be functioned as the optimum system design. Law & politics research has some procedure. 1. It is demanded to catalog the comparison target of legal system by its topic. 2. It is demanded to compare it with Korean situation. 3. The realistic and empirical legal research to the compared policy alternatives is needed. 4. Reflecting the results of this research work, the desirable policy idea must be adopted. 5. The accomplishment of this policy idea must be come true as a specific legislation through interest coordination. 6. This plan must be come into force and the feedback to effect of society must be examined closely. Here I will review generally the contribution of law & politics research to health care law system because of the problem of time and the insufficiency of law & politics research. The constitutional consideration is important to support the interest coordination because of the shortage of resources. The comparative law research can compare our health care system with those of other countries and seek some desirable alternatives. If we discuss the law system plan in a long time and synthetically from different perspectives, more desirable helath care law system can be deducted.

The Unites States has been plagued with soaring health care costs and an alarmingly large number of uninsured population. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 ushered in the most sweeping health care reform in the United States since the introduction of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965 to address these issues. The law’s requirement for individuals to purchase health insurance (the so-called “individual mandate”), however, not only caused a political stir but also prompted constitutional challenges. Some questioned whether the federal government, lacking general police power, could require its citizens to buy unwanted insurance based on its enumerated powers under the U.S. Constitution. This paper summarizes the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court on the constitutionality of individual mandate, and explores how the decision relates to Korea’s own universal health care.

In 2012, the major jurisdictions regarding medical cases caused the controversial issues towards medical and legal fields by getting the judgments from the Supreme Court, which admitted the exceptional admissibility on discretionary grant. By regarding the serial negligence of medical organizations as a separate tort, the sentences which made up irrationality, were spoken by the court. As a result, if the treatment was made, which did not follow the entered matters in medical documents attached, the court announced the jurisdiction that presumes the negligence, which provided the evidence of negligence; on the other hand, this gave had the burden to medical branch to take great care for medicinal treatment. To be applicable for the Principle of Trust, the doctors have to give and take the necessary information for the treatment process and symptom decisions, which also commented in the court. Thus, this case made it difficult to apply the Principle of Trust and considered all the conditions as tough ones, which eventually induced lesser faults for patients' care. Moreover, the court confirmed that the medical ads sending the emails to the members belong to the internet portal sites, are not the inducing behavior by considering that the actions are only medical ads. Furthermore, in the case of Namsu Kim, the court's interpretation was rather limited the definition for medical practice that announced limited Erweiterung der Strafbarkeit cases by lower courts. As a consequence, it is very interesting whether the Supreme Court may change their position and concerning the duty of explanation, the trend to expand the contents and scopes for the duty of explanation continues by admitting instruction explanation obligation and all the compensations and so on.

The first legislation for terminal health-care decision was California’s Natural Death Act (NDA) of 1976 that permitted any adult person to execute a directive directing the withholding or withdrawal of life–sustaining procedures. Advance directive legislation has subsequently progressed on a state-by-state basis. By 1992, all 50 states, as well as the District of Columbia, had passed legislation to legalize some form of advance directive. This state legislation, however, has resulted in an often fragmented, incomplete, and sometimes inconsistent set of rules. Statutes enacted within a state often conflict and conflicts between statutes of different states are common. In an increasingly mobile society where an advance health-care directive given in one state must frequently be implemented in another, there is a need for greater uniformity. In 1993, the Uniform Law Commissioners approved the Uniform Health-Care Decisions Act (UHCDA) in order to bring order to the existing chaos. Unfortunately, the Commissioners waited too long to act. By the time the UHCDA was approved, nearly all states had passed legislation governing advance directives. Consequently, the UHCDA has achieved only a limited success, picking up but one or two enactments a year. The UHCDA is currently in effect in around 10 states: Alabama, Alaska, California, Delaware, Hawaii, Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, New Mexico, Tennessee, Wyoming. In these states the previous laws related to the subjects have been all repealed. The overall objective of the UHCDA is to encourage the making and enforcement of advance health care directives including living will or individual instruction, power of health-care attorney and to provide a means for making health care decisions for those who have failed to plan. The U. S. House of Representatives in 1991 enacted the Patient Self- Determination Act (PSDA). The Act stipulates that all hospitals receiving Medicaid or Medicare reimbursement must ascertain whether patients have or wish to have advance directives. The Patient Self- Determination Act does not create or legalize advance directives; rather it validates their existence in each of the states. Now in America, terminal health-care decision or advance directive for health care is common and universal system. The problem, however, is how to let more people use these good tools to make their lives more beautiful and honorable.