Earticle

In rapidly modern society, awareness about medical practice expands unimaginably. Medical malpractice that has intrinsic, customary trait incre ases annually and a damage suit about malpractice also does. The doctor and patient should listen carefully each other in medical malpractice. They should exchange opinions while patient has to demand enough pre-explanation itself. In malpractice suit, explanation duty of doctor is that normally the patient can have to exert self- determination based on personal rights and in cluding explanation about symptom, content of therapy method, content of therapy method and danger when the doctor implements medical practice accompanying physical invasion. Such awareness is that patient is not just object treated but, subjective existence. Therefore importance of explanation about patient grows as meaning of self-determination of each individual. In connection with such explanation duty of doctor, the doctor does not give the patient enough explanation about possibility of bad result. If the doctor give the patient such like explanation, it is preliminary consideration of malpractice suit that the patient did not receive treatment. explanation duty of doctor is for patient’s choice as the patient compares fully necessity or danger with medical practice. the reason why we adopt non-violation theory of explanation to malpractice suit was started from proving obligation to relax theory.

De lege lata in Korea ist die Telemedizin nur innerhalb der Ärzteschaft gestattet. Das Reformgesetz zur Änderung der Telemedizin, wobei die Telemedizin unmittelbar zwischen Arzt und Patient erlaubt, ist kürzlich. Die medizinische Behandlung basiert sich grundsätzlich auf das Vertrauensverhältnis zwischen Arzt und Patient. Bei der Problematik medizinischer Haftung der Telemedizin innerhalb Ärzteschaft handelt sich es um die Aufteilung medizinischer Verantwortli chkeit zwischen dem behandelnden Arzt vor Ort und dem Konsiliararztmit der Auslegung des § 34 Abs. 3 und 4 im Medizingesetz. Die Telemonitoring in der Telemedizin zwischen Arzt und Patientist.

Recently, that a Korean star performer was killed in medical accident became a controversial issue. Besides, the accident opened up the possib ility that a patient will put in a claim for damages by medical accident. G enerally, for the public, it was almost impossible to demand reparation fo r damages by medical accident despite there is related legal provisions. The burden of proof lies with the patient, and it is a laborious task for t he patient because of the problem with asymmetries of information betwe en patient and medical institutions. In medical disputes, thus, the possibility of a claim for damages depen ds on who has the burden of proof. In the past, medical accident was tre ated in accordance with the principle of liability without fault which is on e of the traditional 귀책 responsible ways. Consequently, it was hard to d etermine the specific fact relevance about medical accident. However, th e principle of liability with fault has been changed to either the principle of presumption of negligence or the principle of liability without fault in modern times. With the change, the burden of proof lied on patient in me dical accident was lightened. Thus, the paper will investigate the way of imputation responsibility regulated under the responsibility of medical damage of chapter 7 in Chin ese Tort Law, which was legislated in 2009, first. Next, it will review th e type of medical accident, and what China adopts as the way of the burden of proof through the application of specific cases. It is worth to review in that it will provide basic data about the dispute resolution for the li ability of medical demage under Korea-China FTA regime to Korean rese archers. Furthermore, this study will generally examine the burden of pro of when medical accident occurs according as the type of the liability of medical damage.

The debate on the right to live in dignity can die for human dignity. The so-called 'dignity' to stop treatment there are still surviving in the controversial center. Recognizes the dignity, including the case of a foreign country. However, a discussion of dignity has several legal questions. Law typically is indisputable is in large part down to whether the limit and medical disposable personal involvement in murder and suicide potenti al for life. Because it means stopping the human dignity of surviving treatment buy it to give up the treatment can be seen that there is no infringement of the right to life requires a careful legal analysis. As such it can be called a conflict that is part of the medical ethics to take care of possible measures of self-determination and dignity buying individual patient. Recent decision of the US Supreme Court, even if the provisions of the law of the surviving treatment interruption was ruled to be possible under the stringent requirements. This can be seen leaving the simple recognition of whether the euthanasia and dignity was in the previous discuss ion is needed requires a discussion on advancing daily objective criteria and procedures. In this paper, we discuss the direction of the saw and present through a review of such cases in the current international situati on and discussed.