• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.16 no.1
• /
• pp.3-82
• /
• 2015

This paper is concerned in the theme of the liability for the breach of duty to inform(Haftungszurechnung der $Aufkl{\ddot{a}}rungspflichtverletzung$) and the malpractice of cosmetic surgery. Here, the terms, treatments for healing purposes and purely medical-technical cosmetic operations are well integrated in the category of "medical conduct(medizinische Handlung)" within the meaning of the public and administrative 'Medical Law'. In the judgment of 6. 13. 2013 Az. 2012DA94865 provides the KHGH(Korean Highest Court of Justice) to inform the patient about the prospects and risks of cosmetic surgery(Infrabrow Excision Blepharoplasty) stringent requirements, similar to the judicature of BGH(cf. BGH, Urt. v. 6. 11. 1990, Az.: VI ZR 8/90). Even in the judgment of 5. 12. 2014 Az. 2013GASO865646 the SZLG(Seoul Central Regional Court) recognizes the physician contract for 'cosmetic septoplasty' as a sort of contract for work. The medical treatment(${\ddot{a}}rztliche$ Heilbehandlung) is still regarded as a prototype of the medical activity, therefore in the meaning of the 'Civil Law(KBGB)', its term needs to be used immediately for healing purposes. The cosmetic operation, desired by a patient, differs from the healing treatment by the element of "indication" and the fact that the "healing purpose(Heilzweck)" itself is missing. In comparative context - methodically fully aware that the unreflective term transfer between different laws might contradict their legal purposes - a series of judgments BSG(BSGE 63, 83, BSGE 72, 96, BSGE, 82, 158, BSGE 93, 252 etc.) and some judgments of LSG are reviewed. In addition, also the dogmatic topic for the "legal natur of a medical treatment contract" is to reconsider by comparative introducing BGHZ 63, 306. Now in view of the current state of greater popularity of artificial cosmetic surgery still indeed is the sentences: The doctor is minister naturae, a helper of nature. A doctor promises regularly only the proper treatment of the patient, but the contractual liability for work should not be excluded in medical conditions for cosmetic surgeries altogether. "With cosmetic operations, seeking to eliminate the external deformities, the doctor may miss the medical profession entirely." - A. Laufs, Medical Law, 5th ed. P. 18.

• Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences
• /
• v.19 no.2
• /
• pp.252-261
• /
• 2006

Four experiments were conducted to investigate the effect of organic or inorganic acid supplementation on the growth performance, nutrient digestibility, intestinal measurements and white blood cell counts of weanling pigs. In growth trial (Exp I), a total of 100 crossbred pigs ({$Landrace{\times}Yorkshire$}${\times}$Duroc), weaned at $23{\pm}2$ days of age and $7.25{\pm}0.10kg$ average initial body weight (BW), were allotted to 5 treatments by body weight and sex in a randomized complete block (RCB) design. Three different organic acids (fumaric [FUA], formic [FOA] or lactic acid [LAA]) and one inorganic acid (hydrochloric acid [SHA]) were supplemented to each treatment diet. Each treatment had 5 replicates with 4 pigs per pen. During 0-3 wk, average daily gain (ADG), average daily feed intake (ADFI) and feed efficiency (G/F ratio) were not significantly different among treatments. However, pigs fed LAA or SHA diet showed improved ADG by 15 or 13% respectively and 12% greater ADFI in both treatments compared to CON diets. Moreover, compared to organic acid treatments, better ADG (p = 0.07) and ADFI (p = 0.09) were observed in SHA diet compared to pigs that were fed the diet containing organic acids (FUA, FOA or LAA). However, during 4-5 wk, no differences in ADG, ADFI and G/F ratio were observed among treatments. Overall, ADG, ADFI and G/F ratio were not affected by acidifier supplementation. Although it showed no significant difference, pigs fed LAA or SHA diets showed numerically higher ADG and ADFI than pigs fed other treatments. In metabolic trial (Exp II), 15 pigs were used to evaluate the effect of acidifier supplementation on nutrient digestibility. The digestibility of dry matter (DM), crude protein (CP), crude fat (CF), crude ash (CA), calcium (Ca) and phosphorus (P) was not improved by acidifier supplementation. Although the amount of fecal-N excretion was not different among treatments, that of urinary-N excretion was reduced in acidsupplemented treatments compared to CON group (p = 0.12). Subsequently, N retention was improved in acid-supplemented groups (p = 0.17). In anatomical trial (Exp III), the pH and $Cl^-$ concentrations of digesta in gastrointestinal (GI) tracts were not affected by acidifier supplementation. No detrimental effect of intestinal and lingual (taste bud) morphology was observed by acidifier supplementation particularly in inorganic acid treatment. In white blood cell assay (Exp IV), 45 pigs were used for measuring white blood cell (WBC) counts. In all pigs after LPS injection, WBC counts had slightly declined at 2 h and kept elevating at 8 h, then returned to baseline by 24 h after injection of lipopolysaccharide (LPS). However, overall WBC counts were not affected by acidifier supplementation. In conclusion, there was no difference between organic and inorganic acidifier supplementation in weanling pigs' diet, however inorganic acidifier might have a beneficial effect on growth performance and N utilization with lower supplementation levels. Furthermore, inorganic acidifier had no negative effect on intestinal measurements and white blood cell counts in weanling pigs. These results suggested that inorganic acidifier might be a good alternative to organic acidifiers in weanling pigs.