• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.24 no.3
• /
• pp.125-153
• /
• 2023

The Supreme Court's en banc decision on December 12, 2022 (docket number 2016Do21314) presented a new standard for determining whether the use of diagnostic medical devices by Korean medical doctors constitutes oriental medical doctors constitutes unlicensed medical practice. Based on this standard, it was determined that the use of ultrasound by Korean medical doctors was not an unlicensed medical practice. Supreme Court's Decision 2016Du51405 on August 18, 2023, is the first case in which a new standard was applied to determine that an Korean medical doctor's use of electroencephalography to diagnose Parkinson's disease and dementia was not an unlicensed medical practice. The Supreme Court abolished the previous standard that Western medical knowledge and technology should not be required for Korean medical doctors to use medical devices. However, it was unclear whether Western medical diagnosis of Korean medical doctors using diagnostic medical devices would be viewed as an an auxiliary method of diagnosis. Parkinson's disease and dementia are Western medical diagnoses. The Supreme Court judged that the Western medical diagnosis of Korean medical doctors was not an unlicensed medical practice. This clearly explains what an auxiliary method of diagnosis means. In addition, the Supreme Court excluded the principles of development and production of electroencephalography from its judgment criteria. Automatic extraction and automatic reading of test results were also excluded. The criminal court's view that the meaning of oriental medical practice should be clearly and strictly interpreted from the perspective of an oriental doctor, and it was clarified that diagnostic medical devices were excluded from criminal punishment unless it was clear that they were not related to the principle of oriental medical practice. As a result, the Supreme Court made it clear that the use of diagnostic medical devices is excluded from criminal punishment unless it is clear that they are not related to the principles of Korean medicine.

• Journal of Food Hygiene and Safety
• /
• v.30 no.3
• /
• pp.217-226
• /
• 2015

This study was conducted to establish a standardized process for developing food safety health indicators. With this aim, we proposed a standardized process, accessed the validity of the suggested process by performing simulations, and provided a method to utilize the indicators. Developing process for domestic environmental health indicators was benchmarked to propose a standardized process for developing food safety health indicators, and DPSEEA framework was applied to the development of indicators. The suggested standardized process consists of an exploitation stage and a management stage. In the exploitation stage, a total of 6 procedures (initial indicators suggestion, candidate indicators selection, data availability assessment, feasibility assessment, pilot study, and final indicator selection) are conducted, and the indicators are routinely calculated and officially announced in the management stage. The exploitation stage is operated by an interaction between a task force team who manages the overall process, and an advisory committee (minimum of 4 in academia, 2 in research, 4 in specialists of Ministry of Food and Drug Safety) who reviews and performs evaluations on the indicators. The standardized process was simulated with 45 initial indicators, and total of 4 indicators (17 detailed indicators) were selected: 'Proportion of domestic fruit/vegetable receiving 'acceptable' in the evaluation of pesticide/herbicide residues', 'Food-borne disease outbreaks', 'Food-borne legal infectious disease incidence', 'Salmonellosis incidence'. Synthetic food safety health index was derived by calculating percent difference with the data from 2010 to 2012. Results showed that when comparing the year 2010 to 2011, and 2011 to 2012, the overall food safety status improved by 10.37% and 9.87%, respectively. In addition, the contribution of indicators to the overall food safety status can be determined by looking into the individual indicators, and the synthetic index may be illustrated to enhance the ease of interpretation to the public and policy makers. In overall, food health safety indicators can be useful in many ways and therefore, attention should be drawn to conduct further studies and establish related legislations.