Earticle

Comes from advancement of life science enable sterile couple to success artificial insemination. In addition today so many sterile couple want to have a baby by a surrogate mother. Until currently from 1997, sheep · mouse · cow · pig · monkey are cloned. Therefore a prospect of human cloning have begun to bud. Perhaps the confusion in the civil law which follows consequently in advancement of life science is the natural thing. Consequently there is a necessity which from as when will decide the start of human life that is very important but is greatly difficult. When should the embryonic cells be considered a human being? Is the embryo bud of fertilized egg condition the human being? The award criterion of the constitutional court right? In conclusion, I do not think so. When establishing a civil law, we do not forecast the development of life science. We will tries to observe the law matter where the occurrence is forecast namely, a person who by pregnancy after death · a person who by surrogate mother · a person who by human cloning etc in the center and We will present the legislation which accords the civil law and of existing.

Against backdrop of high level of specialization with development of medical treatment, it became more difficult to identify doctors' negligence and cause and effect of problems from patients' position, compared to the past. Therefore, the need for lessening the burden of verification for patients, who are complainants, is much higher than before. In the case of disturbing the verification, the attitude towards it should be more determined than that of current precedents. In other words, ① as a patient, it is hard to prove up to the range and limit of discretion in medical practices, so it is sufficient if they can prove that reasonable medical practices within the range of medical practitioners' discretion is different from doctors' actual medical practices, and in such a case, it is adequate to assign the responsibility of verification on medical practitioners who have to prove that their own medical practices are within the range of their discretion. ② negligence in lawsuits for medical negligence refer to the existence of a duty of care and violation of the duty of care, and therefore, what duty of care was breached has to be already reported when the petition is submitted, but because of secret and closing nature of medical practice, inevitably, patients are not able to report it. Therefore, such a petition should be considered as a valid one, and it is appropriate to give patients opportunities to specify the contents of negligence with the evidence that is collected through examination procedure. ③ When the professionalism of medical practice is strengthened, medical practitioners' negligence based on general public's commonsense cannot be discovered, but from the high level of specialized medical perspective, there will be more negligence of medical practitioners. Therefore, in fact, the most practical alternative is discarding the theory of estimation and assigning the responsibility of verification to medical practitioners. When we say assigning the responsibility of verification to medical practitioners, like precedents in Germany, it is sufficient if the victim proves the damages within the range of danger of assailants according to the theory of danger zone and it is appropriate to compose a theory that assailants can argue none-existence of subjective and objective requirement in damages. ④ Electronic records are highly debatable in terms of wide range of post-alterations. Therefore, when alterations of electronic records are discovered, it should not be judged by free conviction as medical negligence, but the responsibility of verifying negligence should be assigned to medical practitioners and the law should be stricter to behaviors of disturbing the verification. It is the same for alterations of written medical records.

인간복제에 관하여는 과연 어디까지 허용할 수 있는 것인지 문제가 된다. 즉 인간개체복제를 목적으로 하는 생식적 복제를 허용할 것인가, 보건의학상의 목적으로 치료적 복제까지만 허용할 것인가 아니면 전면적으로 허용을 하지 말아야 할 것인가의 허용여부가 문제이다. 현재 국제사회의 동향에 의하면 인간개체복제를 허용하는 입법례나 존재 하지 않으나 보건의학상 치료적 복제에 관해서는 대체로 인정하고 있는 듯하다. 인간복제와 관련된 행위 규제의 측면을 위주로 하여 외국의 입법례를 살펴보고, 우리나라 관련법인 생명윤리법이 제정될 당시와는 많은 상황이 변했음을 알 수 있다. 2010. 4. 입법 예고된 생명윤리법은 제정당시와 많은 상황을 변화를 인지하고 개정안을 마련했다. 동개정안은 주로 연구윤리에 관한 개정으로 행위규제적 측면에 있어 현행법과 그 내용에서 크게 차이가 없다. 이 부분에 관한 인식이 전환이 필요하다. 인간복제와 관련된 생명공학의 기술이 발전되어 그 완전성이 확보된다면 인간복제를 허용하는 것이 필요하지 않을까 하는 생각을 한다. 아울러 복제기술과 밀접히 관련되어 있는 인공수정의 문제도 민법의 해석적용에 맡기고 있는데 그 해석에 있어서 한계가 있다.

Human Cloning that is a more progressive technique than Artificial Fertilization enables the birth of child who is an identical twin of the original cell donor and moreover is applied to fighting diseases and eventually even creating genetically compatible organs artificially,. In relation to the constitutional principals that are the sanctity and worth of human life, the freedom of research and so on, this Human Cloning provokes many problems. The foremost legal issue of Human Cloning is whether it is permitted or not, that is to say, whether Reproduction Cloning is permitted or not or whether only Therapeutic Cloning should be permitted or whether Human Cloning is permitted in a wholesale way. I hoped that the legislative proposal in this dissertation will help the legislation on the artificial insemination, Human Cloning for the solution of the difficult social, ethical, legal problems, and that the security of the children's legal status and the peace of sterile couples's family should be realized.

Reviewing the subject related with amending the proviso of Article 22 Section 3-1 of the Internal Organs, etc. Transplant Act, as a factor of Internal Organs Extract, Article 22 Section 3 prescribes that the intention should be priority when he(she) expressed his(her) intention to internal organs extract, and the intention of the bereaved families should be considered as a secondary importance. In case he(she) had defined the disposal method of his(her) corporeality before he(she) died, it should be generally accepted that the disposer has a little binding force unless the method would not be against good customs and social order. Basically, the character of the existing act, Article 2 Section 2 of the Internal Organs, etc. Transplant Act, should not be understood simply as a declaratory statement. It should be understood that the intention to disposal of his(her) corporeality and ashes comes out as the right of self-determination when he(she) is alive, and as the personal right of the deceased when he(she) is dead. Moreover, the personal rights of the deceased, the transformed type of the rights of self-determination, are always primary and preferential prior to the intentions of the bereaved families to the corporeality of the deceased. Accordingly, I suppose, the existing act, the proviso of Article 22 Section 3-1 of the Internal Organs, etc. Transplant Act should be rescinded.

On April, 2010, the Ministry of Health and Welfare gave a legislation notice of entire revision (bill) of Bioethics and Safety Act. This entire revision is to broaden the area of bioethics policy that has been limited to embryo and gene related items and to stipulate the ethical assessment system with regards to the research on subjects and human biological materials research. A role of the bio-bank in the research of medical science and life science is essential to clarify the relation between disease and genetic information and to present a disease treatment method of new paradigm. This study searches the contents regarding the entire revision (bill) of Act regarding bioethics and safety, reviews the insured protection plan in the research using the biobank and surveys the instances of legislation for the biobank in foreign countries.