• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.18 no.2
• /
• pp.3-46
• /
• 2017

Physician's Duty of Information is classified into three categories by legal function: 'Duty of Information to Report' to fulfill the patient's right to know; 'Duty of Information to Guide' patient's convalescing and staying healthy; 'Duty of Information to Contribute' to patient's self-determination. We classify the physician's duty of information because the legal effect from the breach of duty varies accordingly. The legal effect is focused on damage compensation responsibility for breach of duty. When a physician violates 'Duty of Information to Report', he subjects himself to liability of compensation for infringing on the patient's 'Right to Know'. When a physician violates 'Duty of Information to Guide', she subjects herself to liability for general medical malpractice. Finally, when a physician violates 'Duty of Information to Contribute', the physician is basically liable for violation of the patient's 'Right to Self- Determination' which refers to infringement on freedom of choice. However, in the case of situation that patient's refusal to the medical treatment would be presumed, the physician bears all liability for the patient's damage which includes both of property and mental damage.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.19 no.2
• /
• pp.235-261
• /
• 2018

The Medical law stipulates regulations about the physician's duty to inform to contribute to patient's self-determination. This law was most recently revised on December 20, 2016, and came into effect on June 21, 2017. There has been much controversy about this, and it has been questioned whether or not it will be effective for physicians to comply with the duty to inform. Therefore, this study investigated perceptions of physicians of whether they observed the duty to inform and their legal judgment about that duty, and analyzed how the revision of the medical law may have affected the legal cognition of physician's duty to inform. This study was conducted through an online questionnaire survey involving 109 physicians over 2 weeks from March 29 to April 12, 2018, and 108 of the collected data were used for analysis. The questionnaire was developed by revising and supplementing the previous research (Lee, 2004). It consisted of 41 items, including 26 items related to the experience of and legal judgment about the duty to inform, 6 items related to awareness of revised medical law, and 9 items on general characteristics. The data were analyzed using SAS 9.4 program and descriptive statistics, Chi-square test, Fisher's exact test and Binary logistic regression were performed. The results are as follows. • Out of eight situations, the median number of situations that did not fulfill the duty to inform was 5 (IQR, 4-6). In addition, 12 respondents (11%) answered that they did not fulfill the duty to inform in all eight cases, while only one (1%) responded that he/she performed explanation obligations in all cases. • The median number of the legal judgment score on the duty to inform was 8 out of 13 (IQR, 7-9), and the scores ranged from a minimum of 4 (4 respondents) to a maximum of 11 (3 respondents). • More than half of the respondents (n=26, 52%) were unaware of the revision of the medical law, 27 (25%) were aware of the fact that the medical law had been revised, 20(18%) had a rough knowledge of the contents of the law, and only 5(5%) said they knew the contents of the law in detail. The level of awareness of the revised medical law was statistically significant difference according to respondents' sex (p<.49), age (p<.0001), career (p<.0001), working type (p<.024), and department (p<.049). • There was no statistically significant relationship between the level of awareness of the revised medical law and the level of legal judgment on the duty to inform. These results suggest that efforts to improve the implementation and cognition of physician's duty to inform are needed, and it is difficult to expect a direct positive effect from the legal regulations per se. Considering the distinct characteristics of medical institutions and hierarchical organizational culture of physicians, it is necessary to develop a credible guideline on the duty to inform within the medical system, and to strengthen the education of physicians about their duty to inform and its purpose.

• 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.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.20 no.1
• /
• pp.163-201
• /
• 2019

Doctor has the duty of an inter-hospital transfer, known as inter-facility or secondary transfer, when the diagnostic and therapeutic facilities required for a patient are not available at the given hospital. Also, the decision to transfer the patient to an another facility is rely on whether ill patient is the benefits of care, including clinical and non-clinical reasons, available at the another facility against the potential risks. Crucial point to note is that issues about 'inter-hospital transfer' is limited to questions occurred in the course of transfer between emergency medicals (facilities). 'emergency medical (facility)' is specified by Medical Law, article 3 and the duty of an inter-hospital transfer includes any possible adverse events, medical or technical, during the transfer. Because each medical facility has an different ability to care for a patient in an emergency condition, coordination between the referring and receiving hospitals' emergency medicals would be important to ensure prompt transfer to the definitive destination avoiding delay at an emergency. Simultaneously, transfer of documents about the transfer process, medical record and investigation reports are important materials for maintaining continuity of medical care. Although the duty of an inter-hospital transfer is recognized as one of duty of doctor and more often than not it occurs, there is constant legal conflict between a doctor and a patient related to the duty of the inter-hospital transfer. Therefore, we need clear and specific legal standard about the inter-hospital transfer. This paper attempts to review the Supreme Court's cases associated to the inter-hospital transfer and to compare opinion of the cases with guideline for an inter-hospital transfer already given. Furthermore, this article is intended to broaden our horizons of understanding the duty of an inter-hospital transfer and I wish this article helps to resolve the settlement and case dealt with the duty of inter-hospital transfer.

• Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Venturing and Entrepreneurship
• /
• v.12 no.2
• /
• pp.87-94
• /
• 2017

The utilization of the achievements derived from the national R & D project is a key task of the science and technology industry policy that should lead the national economic growth by enhancing the investment efficiency of the national R&D. Although Korea has implemented various programs supporting technology transfer, commercialization, Performance is not sufficient. One of several causes may include inflexibility of a small or medium-sized company Priority System. This study is exploratory research on the directions for improving the current a small or medium-sized company Priority System. Results: First, Because the current SMEs Priority System contributes positively to enhancing SMEs R&D capability, We have to keep the system in principle. However, it is necessary to improve the direction of giving the strategic flexibility of the system so that the system is not operated formally. First, it is appropriate to make an exceptional contract with a person other than a small or medium-sized company, if a small and medium-sized company is not suitable for a technology execution contract due to the nature of technology. Second, it is desirable to consider the fulfillment of the obligations of this system when "sufficient efforts" are made to find a technical user.

• The Journal of the Korea Contents Association
• /
• v.15 no.12
• /
• pp.204-211
• /
• 2015

This study made fundamental approaches on the significance of social enterprises on minority protection policies. In particular, it offered discussions focused on the relationship between social enterprises and North Korean defectors which greatly affect minority policies. Study results can be summed up as follows. First, the greatest difficulties for North Korean defectors in their adjustment to Korean society are economic activities and a sense of social differences and social enterprises are a policy which can resolve these problems in the most effective way. Second, existing social enterprises were excessively run by the central government and they were support models which lacked creativity and development. To resolve such problems, a lesson was learned that these must change into policy models with local coproduction. Third, a lesson was learned that social enterprises offer more than simple economic activity, offering the proper functions of society, culture, living, and language, and thus the participation of North Korean defectors in social enterprises should be made mandatory in certain sectors. Such research results will contribute to theoretically explaining the relationship between North Korean defectors and social enterprises as minority policies.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.35 no.2
• /
• pp.375-402
• /
• 2020

The adoption and entering into force of the Registration Convention was another achievement in expanding and strengthening the corpus iuris spatialis. It was the fourth treaty negotiated by the member states of the UNCOPUOS and it elaborates further Articles 5 and 8 of the Outer Space Treaty(OST). The Registration Convention also complements and strengthens the Article 11 of the OST, which stipulates an obligation of state parties to inform the UN Secretary-General of the nature, conduct, locations, and results of their space activities in order to promote international cooperation. The prevailing purposes of the Registration Convention is the clarification of "jurisdiction and control" as a comprehensive concept mentioned in Article 5 8 of the OST. In addition to its overriding objective, the Registration Convention also contributes to the promotion and the exploration and use of outer space for peaceful purposes. Establishing and maintaining a public register reduces the possibility of the existence of unidentified space objects and thereby lowers the risk such as, for example, putting the weapons of mass destruction secretly into orbit. And furthermore it could serve for a better space traffic management. The Registration Convention is a treaty established to implement Article 5 of OST for the rescue and return of astronaut in more detail. In this respect, if OST is a general law, the Registration Convention would be said to be in a special law. If two laws conflict the principle of lex specialis will be applied. Countries that have not joined the Registration Convention will have to follow the rules concerning the registration of paragraph 7 of the Declaration by the United Nations General Assembly resolution 1721 (X V I) in 1961. UN Resolution 1721 (XVI) is essentially non-binding, but appears to have evolved into the norm of customary international law requiring all States launching space objects into orbit or beyond to promptly provide information about their launchings for registration to the United Nations. However, the nature and scope of the information to be supplied is left to the discretion of the notifying State. The Registration Convention is a treaty created for compulsory registration of space objects by nations, but in reality it is a treaty that does not deviate from existing practice because it is based on voluntary registration. With the situation of dealing with new problems due to the commercialization and privatization of the space market, issues related to the definition of a 'space object', including matter of the registry state of new state that purchased space objects and space debris matter caused by the suspension of space objects launched by the registry state should be considered as matters when amendments, additional protocols or new Registration Convention are established. Also the question of registration of a flight vehicle in the commercial space market using a space vehicle traveling in a sub-orbital in a short time should be considered.