Earticle

Medical Dispute Arbitration Law had been debated on its legislation several times since Korean Medical Association's submission of the bill to the National Assembly in 1988, eventually in December, 2009, passed the National Assembly Standing Committee and was laid before the Legislation and Judiciary Committee, and thus its legislation is now near at hand. During the long process, it has provided a hot issue with our society. And yet, Medical Dispute Arbitration Law has differed considerably in legislative content depending on the main body of proceeding the enactment, which subsequently was given the mixed comments of ‘Act on Malpractice-related Damage Relief’ or ‘Medical Indemnity Act', and this legislative bill also cannot be free from this debate. It is desirable that medical disputes between doctors and patients be resolved through conciliation between the parties concerned. But, because reaching a compromise is difficult owing to deep emotional conflicts between the parties, difficulties in investigating a cause and requiring a high amount of settlement money, etc., it is inevitable to seek a resolution by third party intervention. By the way, such an arbitration by third party is based on the compromise of the interested parties and thus has a limitation of not being able to satisfy both parties completely. Therefore, the legislative bill made for arbitration of medical disputes between the parties will have to prepare an institutional system for the parties to easily understand and accept. Also, problems occurred in the legislative bill will have to be corrected through an in-depth discussion in order for the legislative bill to work as an effective system.

Medical practice is characterized by various physiological response and uncapacity of prediction, therefore when medical accident occur it's hard to prove medical professionals' mistake. Though medical accident by medical professionals' mistake will be compensated anyhow, about irresistible medical accidents, no one should be not bound to compensate, victims get into very difficult situation. So, the nation don't negligent irresistible medical accidents but compensate anyway. As in the past, to the legal principle's constitution of irresistible medical accidents, theory of liability without fault was adapted, and it was said this theory was illogical in theory of liability with fault. But the subject of compensation to irresistible medical accidents is nation, nation don't participate in medical treatment therefore there is no room to occur mistake. And it is not reasonable to regard medical agency as a truster of public service, to cast to it responsibility of medical accidents. The problem of compensation to irresistible medical accidents is understood under the theory of social compensation. Social compensation is consisted of compensation to sacrifice and contribution to nation and society and compensation to sacrifice revealed under danger, the compensation to irresistible medical accidents belongs to the latter. This is near to concept of relief, is applied to national compensation system supplementarily, and compensation have no option but to compensate minimum. And there are not relation between national compensation system of irresistible medical accidents and proof liability transposition and theory of liability without fault, merely in side of sharing responsibility burden between medical treater and victim, it is reasonable to discuss transportation of proof liability and compulsive liability insurance together.

As Complex Regional Pain Syndrome(CRPS) is a new and rare illness, medical cause for it has not yet been clearly found out. Nevertheless, the patients continue to file lawsuits for damage compensation against wrongdoers or their insurers, claiming that the cause of the illness is certain actions of the wrongdoers. Moreover, the claim amount reaches to hundreds of millions of won through billions of won unlike other illnesses. Therefore, CRPS has become an important legal issue in the damage compensation lawsuit. Even though the wound is slight, the development and result may be serious in the case of CRPS. As a result, a sharp conflict arises even regarding medical diagnosis of CRPS in the lawsuit. And, even if the medical diagnosis of CRPS is admitted, severe debates occurs with regard to many issues, which include the causation between accident and CRPS in connection with establishment of damage compensation liability and scope of liability like anamnesis, determination standard of aftereffect disability, and scope of admitted aftereffect medical expense in connection with scope of damage compensation. In this study, I will review fundamental medical research on CRPS up to now and

Along with the development of digital technologies, the information obtained during the medical procedures was working as a source of valuable assets. Especially, the secondary use of personal health information gives the ordeal to privacy protection problems. In korea, the usage of personal medical information is basically regulated by the several laws in view of general and administrative Act like Medicine Act, Public institutions' personal information protection Act, Information-Network Act etc. There is no specific health information protection Act. Health information exchange program for the blood donor referral related with teratogenic drugs and contagious disease and medical treatment reporting system for income tax convenience are the two examples of recently occurred secondary use of health information in Korea. Basically the secondary use of protected health information is depend on the risk-benefit analysis. But to accomplish the minimal invasion to privacy, we need to consider collection limitation principle first. If the expected results were attained with alternative method which is less privacy invasive, we could consider the present method is unconstitutional due to the violation of proportionality rule.

현재의 의료 영역은 고도로 전문화되어 있고 더불어 의료의 분업화도 활발히 이뤄지고 있다. 의료의 분업화 과정에는 특히 서로 상이한 전문을 가진 의사들 간의 신뢰와 불신의 문제가 제기되는데 이러한 분업적 의료는 일반적으로 수직적 분업과 수평적 분업으로 구분할 수 있다. 수평적 분업의료에서는 원칙적으로 다른 의사의 주의깊은 행위에 대한 신뢰가 허용된다. 물론 그렇다고 하여 의사에게 검사 내지 재검사의 의무가 없는 것은 아니고 이를 필요로 하는 상황에서는 반드시 재검사가 이뤄져야 한다. 신뢰는 현행법의 과책원칙을 나타내는 ‘행위에 대한 자유’의 표현이며 의사에게 부주의한 행위가 있는 경우에는 신뢰가 인정될 여지가 없기 때문이다. 결국 재검사를 하여야 할 사정이 존재하지 않는 때에는 다른 영역으로부터의 보고를 원칙적으로 신뢰할 수 있다. 이처럼 본 연구에서는 지속적으로 전문화 및 분업화가 이뤄지고 있는 의료영역에서의 신뢰와 불신에 대한 개관을 통해 이를 재검토하고자 하였다.

Viele medizinische Maßnahmen erfordern ein Zusammenwirken verschiedener Ärzte. In der arbeitsteiligen Medizin wird deutlich zwischen vertikaler und horizontaler Arbeitsteilung unterschieden. Mit dem Begriff vertikaler Arbeitsteilung geht es darum, ob ein Arzt einem anderen Weisungen erteilen kann oder nicht. Bei der Horizontalen Arbeitsteilung handelt es sich um selbständig tätige Mediziner, in gleichen oder aneinander stoßenden Gebieten, bei denen man sich auf die Angaben oder die Tätigkeiten des anderen verlassen kann. Die wirkliche arbeitsteilige Medizin wird horizontal geleistet. In der arbeitsteiligen Medizin, insbesondere in der mehr und mehr spezialisierten Medizin, ist ein gewisser Grad des Vertrauens notwendig, schon aus Zeitgründen. Die Wiederholung aller möglichen diagnostischen, aber auch präoperativen Untersuchungen, wäre zeitaufwendig und kostenreich. Es gibt aber auch Verhältnisse, in denen die Kontrolle oder sogar die Wiederholung dieser Tests notwendig ist. Dann ist, insbesondere wenn sie in einer gewissen Zeitfolge tätig werden, die Problematik des Vertrauens und Misstrauens angesprochen. Der Arzt, der von einem anderen Arzt in herkömmlicher Weise Mitteilungen bekommt oder jedenfalls erwarten kann, darf sich grundsätzlich auf den Vertrauensgrundsatz berufen. Das gilt insbesondere, wenn der mitteilende Arzt in einer personell und apparativ überlegen ausgestatteten Klinik tätig ist. Wenn sich allerdings Zweifel an der Richtigkeit der Mitteilung aufdrängen, etwa zahlreiche Nachlässigkeiten vorgekommen sind, ist für Vertauen kein Platz.

There is a system in Korea named “Advanced Practice Nurse System” qualified by the Minister of Health, Welfare and Family Affairs for Advanced Practice Nurse besides nurse licence. Medical practice is, in today's medical law, understood as a general concept colligating medical practice, nursing practice and midwife practice and so on, for it is defined as a deed of medical technique practiced by medical personnel. Referring to the fact that the Supreme Court recognizes medical personnel as people who have medical expert knowledge, nursing practice can be recognized as a region of medical business and therefore it is not necessary to prescribe nursing practice separately from the definition of medical practice on a precedent, because nurse belongs to medical personnel. According to the precedent regarding ‘Unlicensed Medical Practice of Advanced Practice Nurse for Anesthesia’ recently sentenced by the Supreme Court, the medical practice is only allowed a doctor because it is ‘in need of special knowledge and experience because of high danger on human body' and it is judged to be an unlicensed medical practice prohibited in medical law if it is to be done by a nurse. When considering the actual situation that System for Advanced Practice Nurse for Anesthesia is established under the circumstance that an anesthetist is in want and therefore the operation has not been performed on time, and that it is being expected an anesthetist to be in need, it is necessary to legislate for the range of medical practice of Advanced Practice Nurse so that Advanced Practice Nurse System can be practically legalized, for the role of Advanced Practice Nurse has the great possibility of shrinking because the precedent has considered Advanced Practice Nurse for Anesthesia doing anesthetic operation in clinic today as a potential wrongdoer.

In 2008, the Korean Supreme Court came across a plaintiff's claim to return his deceased father who had left family more than four decades ago and lived with another spouse(de facto) in the meantime to be buried after death in a cemetery of his own choice. The major opinion decided to approve the claim, on the ground that the first legitimate son should be the “head worshiper” prescribed in the article 1008-3 of the Korean Civil Code and that the corpse belong to the head woshiper, i. e. the head woshiper has a special “limited ownership” over the corpse for the purpose of its burial and worship, adding that a deceased's disposition inter vivos, if any, be only ethically but by no means legally binding others, including the head worshiper of course. Here scrutinized are the historical developments starting from the Roman criminal law of sepulchri violatio(trespass to grave) through the Canon law of the Middle Age and the doctrinal reactions to the challenges of anatomy and surgery to the formation of the “supporting the deceased” theory in Germany as well as the similarities in other european continental countries(Switzerland, Austria and France). The comparative review shows that the right of remaining family could neither be identified as limited “ownership” nor that the controversy over a corpse be solved by exclusively attributing/distributing it to one/some of the descendants. In principle, the question should be approached in the extension of family support.

Under the existing law, an act included in medical practice by medical personnel seems to be irrelevant to whether the act concerned in the “Life World” is in the category of medical practice. In spite of the act having been done according to the custom for a long time, and generally done by individuals in the “Life World”, these kinds of acts have been banned by law, because if these acts were done by the general individuals, it would be considered as harmful behavior to human life and body. And it is not sure that individuals know such a ban or notification. This cause a “Mistake of Law”. Also it is happened if someone knows the existence of law but believes that his/her act is not included. For treating the problem of “Mistake of Law” of unlicensed medical act, in this study I inquired thoroughly into the category and regulation of unlicensed medical act, uncertainty of the Medical Services Law the first Section of Article 27, the prohibition of unlicensed medical act. The “Composition Condition” of the first Section of Article 27 of the Medical Services Law is not certain, it doesn't meet the “Doctrine of Clearance”, and it cause the “Mistake of Law”. Also it doesn't meet standardization of constitutional state. An exceptional decision of Pusan District Court, the debate about unlicensed medical practice, constitutional decision on unlicensed medical practice of the Constitutional Court of Republic of Korea and point of view of support of regulation. Also I examined the problem of “Mistake of Law” that the regulation of unlicensed medical practice has. I tried to solve uncertainty of “Composition Condition” and proposed a direction of regulation for solving the “Mistake of Law” and the use of existing law.

Objective: Poisonous Medicinal herbs can be considered as a risk factor to public health unless they are prescribed by Doctor of traditional Korean medicine. The proper method to manage them should be prepared to prevent risk factors caused by misuse and abuse of the poisonous medicinal herbs and enhance public health. Methods: In this dissertation (paper), the definition, scope, management status, data about pharmacology and toxicity and media release regarding adverse reaction were understood after organizing documents, laws and regulations concerning poisonous medicinal herbs. Also, management methods are suggested by analyzing related examples and regulations in China, Japan and Hong Kong, where the use of herbal medicine is general. Results: Methods for items for poisonous medicinal herbs, safety information management, management based on standardization of traditional processing methodology and reorganization and revision of related laws and regulations are established. Conclusion: Proper laws and regulations are not yet established to manage poisonous medicinal herbs in Korea. In this regard, it is urgent to establish laws and regulations which can apply independently. The purpose of the laws and regulations should be to enhance management of poisonous medicinal herbs and prevent incidence of addiction and death, improving the public health.

The bioethics as a comprehensive and normative control method of life sciences including the technology of advanced medical care, on the one hand, it has modified the conditions for allowing the progress of life sciences. On the other hand, it has put the brakes on attempts of life sciences violating the dignity and value of human beings, natural order. Positively, bioethics presents ethical bases, suggests organization of the legal and institutional conditions, and enables elimination of the legal and institutional obstacles, for the progress of life sciences. Negatively, it has presented justifiable prospects and road maps of life sciences, not to take indiscreet and intemperate turn of violating the dignity and value of human beings, natural order, and its such roles must be carried on.

Psychiatrists who treat violent or potentially violent patients may be sue for failure to control aggressive outpatients and for the discharge of violent inpatients. Psychiatrists may be sued for failing to protect society from the violent acts of their patients if it was reasonable for the psychiatrists to have known or should have known about the patient's violent tendencies and if the psychiatrists could have done something that could have safeguarded in public. The courts of a number of jurisdictions have imposed a duty to protect the potential victims of a third party on persons or institutions with a special relationship to that party. In the landmark case of Tarasoff v Regents of University of California, the California Supreme Court held that the special relationship between a psychotherapist and a patient imposes on the therapist a duty to act reasonably to protect the foreseeable victims of the patient. Under Tarasoff, when a therapist has determined, or under applicable professional standards should determine, that a patient poses a serious threat of violence to another, he incurs an obligation to use reasonable care to protect the intended victim against such danger. In addition to a Tarasoff type of action based on a duty to warn or protect foreseeable victims of psychiatric outpatients, courts have also imposed liability on mental health care providers based on their custody of patients known to have violent propensities. The legal duty in such a case has been stated to be that where the course of treatment of a mental patient involves an exercise of “control” over him by a physician who knows or should know that the patient is likely to cause bodily harm to others, an independent duty arises from that relationship and falls on the physician to exercise that control with such reasonable care as to prevent harm to others at the hands of the patient. After going through a period of transition, from McIntosh, Thompson and Brady case, finally, the narrow rule of requiring a specific or foreseeable threat of violence against a specific or identifiable victim is the standard threshold or trigger element in the majority of states. Judgements on these kinds of cases are not enough yet in Korea, so that it may be too early to try find principles in these cases, however it is hardly wrong to read the same reasons of Tarasoff in the judgements of Korea district courts. To specific, whether a psychiatric institute was liable for violent behavior toward others depends upon the patients conditions, circumstances and the extent of the danger the patients poses to others; in short, the foreseeability of a specific or identifiable victim. In this context if a patient exhibit strong violent behavior toward others, constant observation should be required. Negligence has been found not exist, however, when a patient abruptly and unexpectedly attack others or unidentifiable victim. And the standard of conduct that is required to meet the obligation of “due care” is based on what the “reasonable practitioner” would do in like circumstances. The standard is not one of excellence or superior practice; it only requires that the physician exercise that degree of skill and care that would be expected of the average qualified practitioner practicing under like circumstances. All these principles have been established in cases of the U.S.A and Japan. In this article you can find the reasons which you can use for psychotherapist's liability for failure to protect third person in Korea as practitioner.

This thesis introduces the trends of korean courts' ruling on damages in medical malpractice cases for past 10 years. First of all, Korean courts' ruling have had a tendency to pay only non-economic damages for not taking the informed consent. If a doctor cannot get the informed consent from a patient, he compensate only non-economic damages for the infringement of self-determination rights of patient. It's enough for the plaintiff to prove the infringement of self-determination rights, if the plaintiff just want to get non-economic damages. The Korean Supreme court have ruled that if plaintiffs want to get economic damages for the infringement of self-determination rights or informed consent, plaintiffs must prove that the infringement of self-determination rights is the proximate cause of the economic damages of patient. There is another tendency for the Korean Supreme court to limit the damages in medical malpractice cases on the ground of patient's diseases' dangerousness or patient's idiosyncrasy. In the past courts often limit the damages only to 70~80% of total damages, but now a days courts mostly limit the damages to 20~30%. This thesis also introduce the Korean courts' trends about Valuing damages in personal injury actions awarded for gratuitously rendered nursing and medical care.