• Korean Journal of Social Welfare Studies
• /
• no.39
• /
• pp.147-165
• /
• 2008

This Study analysis two features of social citizenship in the period of rights revolution. Discousive arguments are derived from different reinterpretations of social citizenship of Marshall. Some insist that main idea of welfare state is rights of social citizenship and the other insist that social rights is realized after doing duty. Especially the latter emphasis work obligation in which individual responsibility and duty, these discussion underlie wokrfare policy. This reserch examine two contrary discourses based on Marshall's theory, and make a close inquiry into correct interpretation about Marshall. New rights, the Conservative party and New Labour seek for ground on Marshall's citizenship theory, but these are distortion on it. Marshall insisted that citizenship constituted rights and duties but he claimed that discharge of a duty isn't precondition of the exercise of the right.

• Journal of Convergence for Information Technology
• /
• v.8 no.1
• /
• pp.115-121
• /
• 2018

The purpose of this study is to examine the effects of kindergarten teachers' rights and obligations on teacher - A questionnaire survey was conducted on 174 teachers in kindergartens in Seoul, Gyeonggi, and Incheon. The results of this study are as follows: First, teachers' rights have a statistically significant effect on the rights of education and status in linguistic interaction, which is a sub-domain of teaching-infant interaction. And in behavioral interactions, the rights of labor have had a negative impact. In the linguistic interaction and emotional interaction, which are subdivisions of teacher-infant interaction, teacher's duty had a statistically significant effect on the duties of status, while teacher's duty was the sub-domain of inter- Duties of integrity and duty and duty of status did not affect.

• The Korean Nurse
• /
• v.12 no.4 s.66
• /
• pp.14-17
• /
• 1973

이것은 1970년 5월 제네바에 있는 적십자 국제위원회(ICRC)에서 책자로 엮어 펴낸를 번역한 것입니다. 1949년의 제네바 4개협약은, 무력충돌의 희생자들에 대한 모든 경우에 있어서의 보호 및 간호를 보장하기 위하여, 의무(간호)요원들이 맡은바ㅏ 임무를 수행하는데 있어 특별한 권리를 부여하고 있읍니다. 다른 한편으로는 이러한 요원들은 제네바협약에 의하여 부과된 의무를 엄격히 이행하기로 다짐하여야 합니다. 이 책자에는 바로 모든 간호원들이 반드시 알아야 할 주요 규정들이 담겨져 있읍니다.

• Hospice
• /
• s.12
• /
• pp.11-11
• /
• 1998

• 월간낙농육우
• /
• s.167
• /
• pp.81-82
• /
• 1996

• Bulletin of Korea Environmental Preservation Association
• /
• v.20 no.4
• /
• pp.2-4
• /
• 1998

• 가정의 벗
• /
• v.36 no.5 s.417
• /
• pp.17-17
• /
• 2003

• 베이커리
• /
• no.9 s.326
• /
• pp.89-96
• /
• 1995

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.17 no.2
• /
• pp.145-173
• /
• 2016

A patient's Right to Self-Determination or his/her Right of Autonomy in the Republic of Korea has traditionally been understood as being composed of two elements. The first, is the patient's Right to Know as it pertains to the physician's Duty to Report [the Medical Situation] to the patient; the second, is the patient's Right to Consent and Right of Refusal as it pertains to the physician's Duty to Inform [for Patient's Consent]. The legal and ethical positions pertaining to the patient's autonomous decision, particularly those in the interest of the patient's not wanting to know about his/her own body or medical condition, were therefore acknowledged as passively expressed entities borne from the patient's forfeiture of the Right to Know and Right to Consent, and exempting the physician from the Duty to Inform. The potential risk of adverse effects rising as a result of applying the Informed Consent Dogma to situations described above were only passively recognized, seen merely as a preclusion of the Informed Consent Dogma or a denial of liability on part of the physician. In short, the legal measures that guarantee a patient's 'Wish for Ignorance' are not currently being understood and acknowledged under the active positions of the patient's 'Right Not to Know' and the physician's 'Duty to Consideration' (such as the duty not to inform). Practical and theoretical issues arise absent the recognition of these active positions of the involved parties. The question of normative evaluation of cases where a sizable amount of harm has come up on the patient as a result of the physician explaining to or informing the patient of his/her medical condition despite the patient previously waiving the Right to Consent or exempting the physician from the Duty to Inform, is one that is yet to be addressed; that of ascertaining direct evidence/legal basis that can cement legality to situations where the physician foregoes the informing process under consideration that doing so may cause harm to the patient, is another. Therefore it is the position of this paper that the Right [Not to Know] and the Duty [to Consideration] play critical roles both in meeting the legal normative requirements pertaining to the enrichment of the patient's Right to Self-Determination and the prevention of adverse effects as it pertains to the provision of [unwanted] medical information.

• Journal of the Korean hospital association
• /
• v.20 no.6 s.185
• /
• pp.13-28
• /
• 1991