Earticle

Since it is only a repetition of a synonym of regarding medical care level and duty of care as the same, there is no usefulness and the scope of "medical care level" broadens endlessly. This can only be said as a concept that transmuted from the meaning of medical level in its beginning. In addition, using such term only for malpractice even though there is no similar concept for other negligent acts is not in agreement with the overall theory structure of fault liability. However, since the term "medical care level" is a concept that is already being used commonly in precedents, medical circles or legal circles, the reality is that it is not easy to substitute this with a different term. Considering such circumstance, the author's opinion is that it would be desirable to use medical level only as medical knowledge or medical level concept, while treating in parallel another grounds of doer's duty of care judgment such as medical environment & condition and special characteristics of medical practice and medical care level to comprehensively consider them to determine whether or not duty of care has been violated. In addition to understanding medical level by reducing it to "medical knowledge", the medical level of "medical practice" conducted by doer should be considered as the standard instead of the medical level of "doer" when deciding fault. In this sense, specific situation at the time of act becomes an object of deciding fault but it is also different from theory of objectivity in the sense that "sphere of social life to which doer belongs" is not an object of deciding fault. For example, if a doer drove a vehicle, the doer's act of driving would be enough to decide based on ordinary people working as drivers. Accordingly, if a doer's medical practice is something that can be performed only by specialist, it would be enough to decide medical care level based on the doer's medical practice itself considering specialists in general as it would not be necessary to consider the medical level of the doer.

The focus of this paper is the criminal assessment of religiously moti vated circumcision in Germany. A circumcision could be justified based u pon an effective consent given by the person concerned. In the case of a religious circumcision on a boy without a medical indication however, t his consent by the person concerned could not be justified according a t o judgement of district court Köln(LG Köln). Therefore surgeon or urolog ist who performs the circumcision is punishable according to the German Criminal Code. Thereafter a new Act justifying the circumcision is legislat ed. The current german legal status may help us to solve a similar case.

As soon as FTA is concluded, the openness between Korea and China will begin in earnest. The opportunity to enter Chinese medical market will be extended farther. However, current Chinese legal system related to management of medical institutions is not integrated, but rather it is dualized or diversified in application of the laws. It causes to disturb the legal stability. Thus, to legislate integrated medical related laws is urgently needed in China. Under the circumstance, this paper will review overall present condition of Chinese medical institutions and legal system for management of it. First of all, it examines types and conditions of Chinese medical institutions which have been increased constantly since China’s reform and opening up. The examination will help to understand the quality of Chinese medical service, and to compare the system of medical institutions between Korea and China. Next, it will analyze the main contents and defects of basic laws which are Regulations to Managing Medical Institutions and implementation rules for operation. Furthermore, it will prospect the development of Chinese medical related legal system. The study will provide important proposal for establishing medical law system in China as well as entering Chinese medical market. It also expected to provide basic data to Korean researchers for studying current conditions of Chinese medical institutions and related legal system to manage it.

Men have always been curious about human behavior and brain w hich controls the behavior. The supposition that brain could control human behavior is not just a supposition anymore, and brain science is continuously developing to prove that supposition. With the develo pment, men are now able to take photos of brain structure and brai n response. Cognition brain science researches men’s sensory system, motor nerve system, concentration, memory, linguistic ability, cognitive abil ity, emotion and perception ability that differs by brain structure and function. The advancement of brain technology such as PET scan, f MRI, MRI influenced research on brain. Before this technological adv ancement, scientists relied on animal experiment or computer modeli ng for brain study. The use of neuroscience evidence is on the rise, as indicated by a doubling of cases in the United States. Accordingly, with a focus on Louisiana, this comment show the burgeoning discipline of law an d neuroscience by analyzing the multifaceted difficulties of offering neuroscience evidence for purpose of claims of insanity to avoid cri minal responsibility. However, the rapid advancements in neuroscience, it is unlikely that cognitive neuroscience can do what Louisiana law necessitates in providing criminal insanity. Therefore, given the admissibility of neuroscience evidence resulting from Louisiana’ rigorous legal stand ards, criminal sentencing is the legal context most likely to experie nce new form of neuroscience evidence in Louisiana.

Although around 5,000 kinds of Rare Incurable or Intractable Diseases are listed on World Health Organization, just 134 kinds of them are now listed on Korean Medical Care Act. The covering range of Rare Incurable or Intractable Diseases is also limited in fundholding. There has also been little inducement to encourage researchers to develop medical supplies for Rare Incurable or Intractable Diseases, even though it is indispensable. To improve this, the Legislative Bill of Rare Incurable or Intractable Diseases introduced May 21, 2014, contains systematic management of Target Rare Incurable or Intractable Diseases and Government’s Support for researching and developing medical supplies for Rare Incurable or Intractable Disease Patients. However, in comparision with the Japanese Legislative Bill of Rare Incurable or Intractable Disease patients which was introduced 3 months earlier than Korean Bill and affected Korean Bill, actual support for Rare Incurable or Intractable Disease patients in Korean Legislative Bill is not sufficient. According to the Japanese Legislative Bill of Rare Incurable or Intractable Disease patients, Japanese Government is trying to support Rare Incurable or Intractable Disease patients for their public participation and deliver Social Welfare Service to them, allowing them to be social members naturally. In this paper, first, I will discuss about Japanese and Korean Legislative Bill of Rare Incurable or Intractable Disease patients respectively. Then, I’ll suggest things that Korean Government should reinforce to support Rare Incurable or Intractable Disease patients in many ways.

If he is medical personnel of average according to principle of medical technique and medical common sense, Medical malpractice can be mistake or fault caused by neglecting medical obligation, generally which can be said in two case: One is the time someone must take charge of legal liability about medical treatment, the other is its own wrongdoing. Of course, you can see the mistake being included intentional doing, but usually Medical malpractice is used without intentional doing because already the mistake get out of medical practice’s sphere as intention was involved. In order to be admit as a claim for damages due to medical malpractice, it needs causality between doctor’s action and patient’s damage caused by the action. usually causality premises cause and effect between a harmful act and loss occurrence, mean causality between a harmful act and indirectly damage, and is treated with connecting matter of trade imputation. However, in medical malpractice, doing particular action or nothing is unclear whether loss occurrence is attributed to doing or not, and it is frequently doubtful that wether misdiagnosis can be acknowledged by cause. In other words, naturalistically or scientifically judging causality is of course, difficult to judge empirical causality because causality in medical malpractice is related to specialized medical field. Therefore, judgement of causality must be performed by medical point of view, and when it comes to medical malpractice suit, it is demanded that you perceive how this specificity interact in causality. this fact is specificity of causality in medical malpractice. When it comes to malpractice suit in this specificity, default’s cause on monetary debt is not independent with causality, and illegal act’s cause will be considered with mistake including illegality or causality. Causality is sufficient to be proving as historical fact and scientific proof is unnecessary, which is also unnecessary because purpose of a civil trial focus on fairly solution. In the rapidly changing modern society, awareness about medical practice seems to grow extent to unimaginable part, medical malpractice accident and damage claim suit about medical malpractice is also annually increasing. Hence, we arrange the concept about object of obligation proof mitigation. On the basis of this arrangement, we check several theories with concerning causality in medical malpractice, A causal relationship theory fairly, recently disputed probability theory or realistic causality theory, and dynamic causality theory. We want to make sure of objectivity about standard setting of causality by examining a standard of judgment of causality existence.