Earticle

It is true that in the analysis of our position of judicial precedent, there were many cases where we depended upon the theory of Germany. As seen above, however, several points of theoretical contradictions were exposed in analyzing the position of judicial precedent through the theory of Germany. In other words, the legal principle of theory of estimation in actuality or theory of estimation in advance and the change in the burden of proof are showing their limitations in properly analyzing our judicial precedent. It is the opinion of the Author that it is most appropriate to look at the position of our judicial precedent as having been based on the theory of probability that has been evolved in Japan. Since the theory of probability is a theory that was created to alleviate the burden of proof of public nuisance suit, however, it can be said that it is not directly related to the issue of burden of proof on fault. However, it would be acceptable to consider the position of judicial precedent of our country as having been based on the theory of probability since the theory of probability is being applied also in Japan with regards to the medical malpractice suit and causal relationship burden of proof. Furthermore, there is a need for the paradigm shift of looking at the facts that are considered as indirect contrary evidences for the defendant as plea items by looking at indirect facts recognized by judicial precedent as major factor in order to improve the degree of proof on major facts while not adding improper blow to the interest party by fulfilling Verhandlungsmaxime also in the legal assessment concept such as fault.

Debate over the relationship of law and bioethics is growing - what the relationship has been and what it should be in the future. While someone has praised law and rights-talk for creating modern bioethics, others has instead blamed law for hijacking bioethics and stunting moral reflection. Indeed, as modern bioethics approaches the 40-year mark, historians of bioethics are presenting divergent accounts. In one accoun,t bioethics largely grew out of philosophy and theology, not law. In another account, law has deeply shaped bioethics from the start, forging its central commitment to the rights of patients and research subjects and the field's imposition of broad fiduciary responsibilities on health care professionals and researchers. In addition to debating how to properly describe law's historical relationship to bioethics, commentators have argued over whether law's influence in bioethics is now good or bad. The issues of bioethics step into the realm of law suddenly through the so-called Shinchon Sevrance Hospital Case. The Case opened the discourse of bioethical issues in earnest. Now issues of bioethics are switching from private, ethical problems to public, legal problems. In case of the realization of dispute, the intervention of court is unavoidable, but it does not produce good results. So it is necessary to recognize the limitations of legal regulation as well as it's necessity. In recent years, we learned that scientists have created social risks forcing us to think through these issues very carefully. Most of bioethical issues are at the leading edge of a series of moral hazards. Sometimes we may face that it is needed to prevent some wrong-doing before becoming huge criminal behaviour. Certain criminal policy must be designed to analyse the science-related crimes.

GMO has been issued on its potential risk after the commercialization of GMOs. However, there is no international legal system on liability and remedies. Developed conturies did not want to have a strong regulation on GMOs' potential risk while developing countries tried to make a strict liability on GMOs' risk. As a result of 10 years discussions, the Supplementary Protocol was adapted. Main issue of this protocol is liability and remedies. However, there are several problems. First, the Protocol did not present the legal system of liability and remedies. Instead, the protocol delegates the legal system of national laws. Secondly, this protocol covers only living GMO. However, living GMOs are very few in market and most of all GMOs are processed. Thirdly, there is no regulation for finance which is huge in GMOs' damages on human health and environment. For implementation act, we have to consider how to solve them. For example, whether the new law which covers GMOs' special liability is established.

Post Traumatic Stress Disorder(hereafter referred to as "PTSD") is the concept of human psychology, and PTSD has legal characters to admit the damage claim or pay compensation for the entitled persons. However, there are a number of problems that should be solved in terms of vague diagnosis criteria of PTSD or difference between medical judgement and legal judgement on PTSD. The issues including healing time, fix time of symptom, trauma grades, loss of manpower and minor deduction problems would be solved clearly in case PTSD is admitted through solving the problems mentioned above, and there would be still difficult problems including traumatic neurosis which are not included in PTSD. In addition, it would be also necessary to research on PTSD, collateral damages, and furthermore, Sub-Syndromal PTSD. The compensation would be paid fairy and reasonably only if these difficult problems belonging to the field of psychiatry were made clear. Finally, I suppose that there should be in-depth studies in collaboration between law and medicine for dealing with the problems.

Administrative Action must be legal in procedures. It can't be justified for Administrative Action to ignore legal procedures. That is, nothing must be violated under the pretext of protecting public interest. Procedures must be discharged before Administrative disposition, especially when the Administrative disposition contains the elements of disadvantage disposition. So far, it is true that we have ignored Administrative Procedures because of achieving the goal of Administrative disposition. So, the judgement on medical image equipment care expenses cost markdown is really significant because it emphasizes the importance of Administrative Procedure to Administrative Practice which has ignored the procedures.

Surrogate pregnancy, infertile couples at the request of Iranian women in the third to the artificially modified, or, by transplanting the fertilized egg to make pregnancy and childbirth is a medical approach. Surrogate pregnancy on the reproductive selfdetermination is recognized as one of the. Surrogate pregnancy is voluntary, however, not forced by social pressure is likely. In addition, a third party on behalf of pregnancy, especially considering the interests of the child should be born. And ethical issues in surrogate pregnancy, whether it is appropriate to regulate by law against the need to consider. Finally, the prohibition of surrogate pregnancy, children born under the law about whether the child is a problem, someone in Japan about the current regulations regarding the direction shall review and revise the Civil Code.

China's organ transplantation procedures had begun in the 1960s. The number of transplants has increased steadily with faster developments in medical technology. There is still a large gap between China and the world's developed countries. Disregarding conditions resulting from organ transplant technology and drugs, the main reason for the large gap between China and the world's developed countries are the obsolete ethical codes and the development of legal regulations. Through the analysis of the "Status Quo" in laws regulating organ transplants, along with the causes determined through the analysis of the problems facing China, the ethics of organ transplants will be comprehensively explained. It is undoubtedly of great significance to help medical personnel to engage with the ethical principles related to organ transplant technology and to ensure the achievement of the ultimate goal for organ transplantation's real benefit to the people.