• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.21 no.2
• /
• pp.37-73
• /
• 2020

Medical practice with medical adaptability is not illegal. Consent to medical practice is also not intended to exclude causes of Illegality. The patient's consent to medical practice is the exercise of the right to self-determination, and the patient's right to self-determination is take shape through the doctor's information. If a doctor violates his duty to inform, failure to inform or lack of inform constitutes an act of illegality of omission in itself. As a result, the legal interest of self-determination is violated. The patient has the right to know and make decisions on his or her own, even when it is not connected to the benefit of life and body as the subject of the body. If that infringed and lost, the non-property damage shall be recognized and the immaterial damage must be compensated. On the other hand, the violation of the duty of information does not belong to deny the compensation for physical damage. Which the legal interest violated by violation of the obligation to inform is the self-determination, and loss of opportunity of choice is recognized as ordinary damage. However, if the opportunity of choice was lost because of the infringement of the right to self-determination and the patient could not choice the better way, that dose not occur plainly bad results, under the prove of these causal relationship, that bad results could be compensated. But the unexpectable damage could not be compensated, because the physical damage is considered as the special damage due to the violation of the right of the self-determination.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.18 no.1
• /
• pp.3-35
• /
• 2017

The Supreme Court of Korea first admitted compensation for damages caused by breach of informed consent in 1979. From then on, specific details of informed consent are shaping up and developing through court precedents. The duty of informed consent of doctor is based on article 10 of the Constitution and medical contract, and is expressly prescribed Article 12 of Framework Act on Health and Medical Services and other acts and regulations. By the way, the regulations about duty of informed consent of doctor have been established in Medical Law revised on December 20, 2016, and the revised Medical Law will be implemented on June 21, 2017. According to the revised Medical Law, medical practices subject to description and consent are operation, blood transfusion and general anesthesia that threaten to cause serious harm to human life or to the body. When performing these medical activities, the written consent must be explained and agreed upon in advance. If a doctor violates the law, he will incur fines of less than 3 million won. Comparing and viewing the revised Medical Law and existing legal principles about the duty of informed consent, we can confirm that there is a substantial difference between the two parties. Accordingly, despite the implementation of the revised medical law, the existing legal principles are unlikely to be affected. However, from the perspective of legal uniformity and stability, it is undesirable that legal judgments on the same issues differ from each other. The revised Medical Law about informed consent needs to be reformed according to existing legal principles. And, as in the case of Germany, it is desirable to include the matters concerning informed consent in the civil code.

• 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.21 no.1
• /
• pp.3-32
• /
• 2020

Under the Korean case law, physicians are obliged to disclose or inform the risk associated with a specific treatment to their patients before they perform the treatment. If they fail to do this, they are liable to compensate pain and sufferings. If the patient can establish that he or she would not have consented at all to the treatment had he or she been informed, the physicians are liable to compensate all the loss incurred by the treatment. In this article, the author examines the legitimacy of this case law from the perspective of legal doctrine as well as its practical affect on the medical practice and the furtherance of self-determination of the patient. The fundamental findings are as follows: The case law that has physicians who failed to inform treatment risk compensate pain and sufferings for the infringement of the right of self-determination seems to be a disguised and reduced compensation of all the loss based on the possible malpractice, which cannot be justified in view of the general principles of tort liability. It is necessary to adhere to the requirements of causation and imputation between the failure to inform treatment risk and the specific patient's consent to the treatment. If this causation and imputation is established, all the loss should be compensated. Otherwise, there shall be no liability. The so-called hypothetical consent defence shall be regarded as a part of causation between the failure to inform and the consent. The suggested approach can preserve the essence of physician-patient relationship and fit for the very logic of informed consent better.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.4 no.2
• /
• pp.225-248
• /
• 2003

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.24 no.2
• /
• pp.119-145
• /
• 2023

The Pharmaceutical Affairs Act stipulates medication counseling as an obligatory requirement in the case of preparation of medicine. In fact, there are many cases where pharmacists only tell patients the dose and time and do not properly guide them on taking medications. However, in light of the current situation where non-face-to-face treatment is being attempted, there is a high possibility of drug-taking accidents due to insufficient medication guidance. In addition, as an aging society progresses, the need for explanations on pharmaceuticals is increasing. If a pharmacist causes damage to a patient by failing to give appropriate medication guidance, the patient can claim compensation for damages. In addition, if a drug accident occurs due to a conflict between the pharmacist's duty to guide medication and the doctor's duty to explain, a joint tort is established between the pharmacist and the doctor. Nevertheless, there are cases in which only doctors are judged to bear the tort liability. However, the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act includes providing information for the selection of over-the-counter drugs in the medication guidance as part of the medication guidance obligation. Therefore, in order to reconsider the importance of the medication-taking guidance duty, it is necessary to define the medicationaking information provision method and the medication-taking guidance duty as separate concepts. In addition, it is necessary to amend related regulations centered on patients so that medication guidance, such as side effects of medicines and interactions with concomitant medications, can be made in detail.

• 방재와보험
• /
• s.153
• /
• pp.51-55
• /
• 2014

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.3 no.1
• /
• pp.270-288
• /
• 2002

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.16 no.1
• /
• pp.155-190
• /
• 2015

The court sentenced meaningful decisions related to the medical service in 2014. The court assumed the negligence of medical staff in the accident if being broken while using the medical equipment for not an original purpose at the time of surgery and ruled that the compensation for damage can be recognized in recognition of the causal relationship between the explanation duty violation and side effect's happening when unproven surgery on safety is implemented regarding the duty of explanation, that in the case of cosmetic surgery, the subject on the duty of explanation needs to be expanded compared to the general medical practice and that the duty of explanation cannot be accepted for the range that cannot be expectable. Also, the court has provided the requirement and limitation of self-determination exercise in case of the crash between patient's self-determination and doctor's duty of care and has ruled that as automobile insurance contract is a contract with the insurance company to pay regarding liability for car accidents, treating patients and taking the insurance money is not illegal activity even for the unlicensed hospital violating the medical law while established. The judgment stating the opinion that medical practitioners cannot be punished according to the medical law prohibiting the receiving of rebate in case that medical practitioners did not receive benefit while the medical institution itself gained an unfair economic benefit also stands out. And the court has ruled that even if the medical institution who received a business suspension is closed, the suspension is still effective in case that the same operator opens a new medical institution in the same place, ruled on the requirement to conduct a medical service outside of the medical institution that the doctor opened and ruled that the administrative penalty cannot be conducted prior to the conviction on charge of violating the medical law.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.21 no.2
• /
• pp.163-207
• /
• 2020

Korea has been positioned as the leading country in the industry of clinical trials as the clinical trail of Korea has developed for the recent 10 years. Clinical trial has plays a significant role in the development of medicine and the increase of curability. However, it has inevitable risk as the purpose of the clinical trial is to prove the safety and effectiveness of new drugs. Therefore, the clinical trial should be controlled properly to protect the health of the subjects of clinical trial and to ensure that they exercise a right of self-determination. In this context, the fiduciary duties of doctors who conduct clinical trials is especially important. The Pharmaceutical Affairs Act and the relevant regulations define several duties of doctors who conduct clinical trials. In particular, the duty to protection of subjects and the duty to provide information constitute the main fiduciary duties to the subjects. Those are essentially similar to the fiduciary duties of doctors in usual treatment from the perspective of the values promoted by the law and the content of the law. Nonetheless, clinical trials put more emphasis on the duties to provide explanation than in usual treatment. Further research and study are required to establish the concrete standard for the duty of care. However, if the blind pursuit of higher standards for the duty of care or to pass the burden of proof to doctors may result in disrupting the development of clinical trials, limiting the accessibility of patients to new treatment and even violating the principle of sharing damage equally and properly. In addition to these duties, the laws of clinical trials define several duties of doctors. Any decision on whether the violation of the law constitutes the violation of the fiduciary duty and justifies the demand for compensation of damages should be based on whether relevant law aims to protect the safety and benefit of subjects, even if in an incidental way, the degree to which such violation breaches the values promoted by the law and the concrete of violation of benefit of law, the detailed acts of such violation. The legal interests of the subjects can be protected effectively by guaranteeing compliance with those duties and establishing judicial and administrative controls to ensure that the benefit of subjects are protected properly in individual cases.