Earticle

The purpose of introducing the new medical dispute mediation syste m is to resolve the medical dispute quickly and fairly, to protect the ri ghts of the patients, to provide a stable care environment for medical personnels. To make a success of the medical dispute mediation syste m, the cooperation of the medical circles is essential though there see ms to be a lack of incentives to attract medical dispute mediation proc edures of the medical circles. Without the cooperation of the medical c ircles, medical dispute mediation procedures can not be activated, and if this happens, the medical dispute mediation procedures, which had b een carried out for a long time will be merely nominal or turn to be s mall claims case-centered dispute mediation procedures. Therefore, by revising the law or establishing low rank decree, it is necessary for government to draw up measures to have the cooperatio n of the medical circles.

Der Begriff "Individualisierte Medizin" erfährt derzeit im Gesundheitswesen eine beachtliche Entwicklung. Mit dem "neuen Paradigma" werden hohe Erwartungen verknüpft: individualisierte Medizin als Revolution und "Medizin der Zukunft". Was verbirgt sich dahinter? Zunächst fällt auf, dass der Begriff in vielfältigen Formen benutzt wird. Einführend werden zwei Hauptdefinitions-Merkmale der individualisierten Medizin skizziert: die sogenannte "Stratifizierung" der Medizin sowie die stärkere Einbeziehung und Verantwortung des Individuums bei der medizinischem Behandlung. Nach einer Einschätzung zur Entwicklung und zum Inhalt der Individualisierten Medizin sind die Konsequenzen für das System der Krankenversicherung wie für den einzelnen Patienten zu diskutieren. Wurde in der Vergangenheit hauptsächlich auf die möglichen Vorzüge einer individualisierten Medizin in der (Fach-)Öffentlichkeit eingegangen, so ist mittlerweile festzustellen, dass die Diskussion zunehmend differenzierter ausfällt. Sowohl auf die Chancen wie auch die Risiken ist einzugehen. Nach alledem geht es in diesem Bereich angesichts schwerwiegender nichtmedizinischer Folgen medizinischer Entwicklungen auf der individuellen wie sozialen Ebene keineswegs nur um isolierte medizinische und medizinwissenschaftliche Probleme per se, sondern um einen hohen Bedarf an gesellschaftlichen, politischen und letztlich auch rechtlichen Entscheidungen. Diese berühren Medizinrecht und Patientenrechte auf unterschiedlichen Ebenen der Zulässigkeit, Zugänglichkeit, Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit neuer Behandlungskonzepte.

Medical malpractice suit, a term which has not been clearly defined by the courts as a legal terminology, is a suit where the side of patients files a claim for damage compensation against medical providers based on "the argument that the medical accident was caused by those providers' wrongdoing in their medical treatment." It is the patient who must have a burden of proof in such suit no matter what the cause of action for the medical malpractice suit is unlawful act in tort law or default on the debt. Compared to the other ordinary suits, there are two difficulties in a medical malpractice suit: the one is that the underlying facts themselves are hard to be reacted; and the other is that it is very difficult to prove the existence of those facts. These difficulties in proving facts come from the nature of medical treatment itself. In particular, it can be a huge hindrance on proving the existence of medical malpractice that medical treatments are made on great discretion of medial providers and the effects of those treatment can be varied depending on the conditions of individual patients. Thus, if we apply general rule of shifting burden of proof to a medical malpractice suit, the disadvantages of difficulties in proving evidence could be borne by either the side of patient or medical providers unilaterally, which requires us to adjust such rule of burden of proof based on the realities of medical malpractice suit. Regarding these issues, there are various theories and discussions for relieving the burden of proof on the patients with respect to the negligence and causation. We can divide those theories into theories for alleviating burden of proof, theories for shifting burden of proof, theories for hindering burden of proof. Even though there are other views, the case laws of the Supreme Court of our country seem to apply all of those theories for alleviating burden of proof. However, despite of the existence of such theories, from the perspective of patients, it is hard to say that the problems in proving evidence are resolved satisfactorily. In this regard, the theories and discussions for shifting burden of proof, which are more satisfactory to the patients, are actively made in other countries including Germany. Shifting burden of proof can be applied to the instances where intentional malpractice, negligence and causation must be proven. It is burden of proof regarding causation about which, in Germany, a lot of discussions on shifting burden of proof are made in terms of damage compensation claims of medical malpractice suit based on the causes of action such as unlawful act in tort law or default on the debt. As for the burden of proof regarding negligence, based on the reason that the fundamental principle of equity may be seriously violated, the discussions on shifting burden of proof in terms of damage compensation claims based on the causes of action of unlawful act in tort law are not aggressively made In contrast, as for damage compensation claims based on the causes of action of default on the debt, such discussions are aggressively made. Thus, in this paper, I examine the 'theories for shifting the burden of proof regarding causation' which most of case laws and theories in Germ any recognize whatsoever the cause of action for the medical malpractic e suit is unlawful act in tort law or default on the debt. In addition, I ex amine whether there is room for the application of those theories to the cases in our country where no case law of the Supreme Court has dealt with the issue of shifting the burden of proof in medical malpractice suits and the studies on such issue have not been conducted satisfactory. In our country, we have not found any case laws of the Supreme Cou rt handling with the issue of shifting the burden of proof in medical malp ractice suits so far. However, the legislature has continue to assert that a special statute must be enacted for shifting the burden of proof in med ical malpractice suits so that the person in fault or negligence shall be r esponsible for the burden of proof and damage compensation in either co ntract cases of civil law or tort law. People's coalitions such as the Citiz ens' Alliance of Korea still continue their assertion that the burden of pr oof in medical malpractice suits shall be shifted. In our country, of cours e, there may be necessary to adopt the theories for shifting the burden of proof in medical malpractice suits. However, in my view, it would be premature to radically recognize and adopt those theories.

Although Parties, directly involved, had made contracts for a technology transfer or a patent license for the purpose of research and development in the past, the new form of contract, a material transfer agreement, emerged in the late 20th century. Especially, as a biotechnology was developed and patent for life was allowed, the biological material transfer agreement became increased rapidly. The biological material transfer agreement could be made variously d epending on the form of transfer, sort of material, parties, directly involv ed, and whether they could be paid or not. Securing a right to material i s a key point for providers and gaining a right to product of work is mai n point for receivers. So the material transfer agreement should correctl y reflect the intention of providers who have expertise on materials and balance the claims and obligations of providers and receivers. Also it sh ould deal with problems of intellectual property rights to materials and p roducts of work. Uniform Biological Material Transfer Agreement(UBMTA) of National I nstitutes of Health(NIH) is used as a global standard. But UBMTA only r egulates relationships between public organizations and non-profit organi zations, so the study should be done to prepare a standard which rules r elationships between profit-making organizations, public organizations and profit-making organizations, and public organizations and non-profit orga nizations. Also the material transfer agreement, made according to the un ique characteristics of materials, should be developed by grasping charac teristics of each material. Furthermore, Access and Benefit Sharing(ABS) agreement could be mi xed up with the material transfer agreement because it also deals with li fe like genetic resources and it uses a name of the material transfer agr eement. So, the study which compares and analyzes the material transfer agreement and ABS agreement should be done.

What medications for victims of pollution means drug disaster. Damage to the structure and function of the human body by the side effects of the drugs administered to treat the disease being referred to as vulnerable. Increasing concern about the health and the boom or development of drugs for the treatment of incurable diseases, particularly on a massive dose of the drug in the medical field, drug screening system problems, such as excessive dependence on the drug's national problem and is also associated. Also involved suspected or medically harmful events, such as the use of drugs to the social problems of the expanded scale of the wrong medical administrative means. Drug disaster in Japan, and the evolution of the legal issues in this paper is to explore the overall.

Nation evolve, and increased interest on health and health food and herbal medicine, then increased for the necessity of separation of prescribing and dispensing about the oriental herbal medicine, therefore hanyakhakgwa and hanyaksa system arose. However, contrary to the purpose of the system of separation of prescribing and dispensing about the oriental herbal medicine, the Wonoi-Tangjeonsil regulations were introduced under Medical law enforcement rules in 2008. Actually the Wonoi-Tangjeonsil is as well as contrary to the intent of separation of prescribing and dispensing about the oriental herbal medicine, addition to the legal terminology confusion between the preparation and manufacture, discrimination of another doctor and acupuncturist, the violation of Pharmacists and doctors on the Scope of Work, violation of the principle of legal reserves, Violation of several provisions of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Law, etc, there are Various problems about Wonoi-Tangjeonsil. Therefore revision work will be needed for modification and complementary to a portion of which may be in violation of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Law. All of these issues, to trying to enforce separation of prescribing and dispensing about the oriental herbal medicine will be the fundamental solution.

The doctor-designation system is the system that people can choose a doctor to get the medical service having more a good quality. This system has been used as another profit-making way for hospital' s owners or doctors so far. These days, the candidates for President, whether from the ruling par ty or from the opposition party, are promising to extend the coverage of the national health insurance as their public welfare pledge. So in this pa per, whether the doctor-designation system which has not been supporte d by the national health insurance is really important and what the desir able ways to make the system better are will be referred. That is, in addition to making people who choose the doctor-designati on system get support from the national health insurance, the ways to m ake the doctor-designation system become a really good system for pati ents will be suggested.