• Journal of muscle and joint health
• /
• v.28 no.1
• /
• pp.30-40
• /
• 2021

Purpose: This study aims to present nurses' legal conflicts and legal basis through the precedent analysis of a crime of professional negligence resulting in death and injury for the past 20 years and provide vital references to cultivate the correct and high-level legal consciousness of nurses. Methods: This study was conducted in five stages of the systematic content analysis method. It amalyses the precedents of a crime of nurses' professional negligence resulting in death and injury from 2000 to 2020. The application system for the provision of the written judgment was used to collect precedents. A total of 67 cases were analyzed in this study, and they were classified according to the type of nursing error, and the contents were systematically analyzed. Results: A total of 52 cases (77.5%) of nursing errors were caused by independent nursing practices. They were classified as 38 cases (A1) in the violation of patient supervision obligations, 12 cases in the violation of progress observation obligations (A2), one case in the violation of medical equipment inspection obligations (A3), and one case in the violation of explanation and verification obligations. Among the non-independent nursing practices (code B), B1 was 10 cases related to administrative acts, one blood transfusion accident (B2), and one anesthesia accident (B3). Conclusion: To prevent nurses from being involved in legal confits, the advocation of systematic training such as nurses' legal obligations and judgment grounds through case-based learning from the recent precedent analysis and promote nurses' legal perspective, and preventive activities are essential.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.15 no.2
• /
• pp.435-459
• /
• 2014

Supreme Court of Korea has been mitigating the burden of proof on the malpractice and causal relation by a patient in accordance with the practical transfer of such burden of proof on causal relation as well as relieving a doctor's burden of proof on mistake in the civil damage claim suits on the malpractice. However, a prosecutor shall strictly prove the causal relation between malpractice and unfavorable results as well as a doctor's mistake in the criminal cases for making a doctor accept the professional negligence resulting in death or injury in accordance with In Dubio Pro Reo principles. Furthermore, it shall not be allowed to relieve the burden of proof on malpractice and causal relation which has been frequently applied in the civil proceedings. Nevertheless, it was widely known that the front-line courts accepted the malpractice and causal relation by quoting the legal principles on relieving the burden of proof on malpractice and causal relation applied in the civil cases even in criminal cases with no or insufficient proof on malpractice or causal relation. However, the latest precedents in Supreme Court explicitly declared the opinion that there was no reason to apply the legal principle to relieve the burden of proof on the malpractice and causal relation in the criminal cases requiring the proof 'which doesn't cause any reasonable doubt' on malpractice and causal relation in accordance with the legal principles 'favorable judgment for a defendant in case of any doubt' on the basis of the strict principle of 'nulla poena sine lege.' Accordingly, Supreme court definitely clarified that there would be no reason to relieve the burden of proof on malpractice and causal relation in criminal cases by reversing several original judgments accepting malpractice and causal relation even though there were no strict evidence.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.19 no.1
• /
• pp.113-142
• /
• 2018

In recent years, there have been opinions in which physicians are liable to the revocation of their medical license if they are sentenced to above a certain level for criminal charges regardless of the types of offenses. Accordingly, a revised bill of law was submitted in the National Assembly, and related discussions are thus expected to commence. Considering the morality and ethics or the level of the rule of law that the general public expects of physicians, as well as the license revocation system in other professional sectors, it is assessed that medical license revocation due to criminal convictions of physicians is appropriate to some degree. However, if a poorly devised system is established based on unrefined inferences or emotional judgements, unexpected side-effects are likely to arise. With regard to serious criminal acts that society generally perceives as unacceptable, it can be assessed that the revocation of physicians' licenses would appropriately protect the general public from threats. However, given the life-saving characteristics of high-risk medical practices, higher malpractice exposures, and social values, it is difficult to assess charges of professional negligence resulting in death(or in injury) and minor offences in the same manner as anti-social criminal offences are handled. Physicians need to be treated the same as any other professions. At the same time, they are engaged in administering medical treatment to patients in the face of great risks as professionals. Under the circumstances, a discussion on the introduction of a more specific and empirical system is needed by considering the intrinsic characteristics of medical treatment and the need for an equitable health and medical policy. Accordingly, based on the above judgment and perception, this study explores the code of ethics for physicians and medical license revocation related to criminal offences at home and abroad, and examines various legislative alternatives appropriate for the Republic of Korea. In doing so, the purpose of the study is to contribute to the development of a reasonable system for handling criminal offences by physicians.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.16 no.2
• /
• pp.3-26
• /
• 2015

Recently, Practicing of ghost surgery and duty of informed consent of doctors have become a big issue in the medical dispute and lawsuits. The ground of admitting the informed consent and the agreement(self-determination of patients) can be based on the dignity of man and the right to pursue his happiness guaranteed under Article 10 of the constitution in theory. However there are no explicit legal regulations on the duty of the informed consent and there is no substantive legal enactment on the informed consent, but there is a collision between self-determination of patients and the discretionary power of doctors. If the discretionary power on the duty of the informed consent was extended it may result in the infringement of the right of surgical patients, so called arbitrary medical treatment. Relating to this issue, New Jersey Supreme Court held that a patient has the right to determine not only whether surgery is to be performed on him, but also who shall perform it. Moreover it held that a surgeon who operates without the patient's consent engages in the unauthorized touching of another and, thus, commits a battery'. But there are no ghost surgery cases adopting battery theory in Korea, and professional negligence has been considered rather than the battery, regarding an absence of hostile intent to injure patient. Supreme Court of Korea held that a doctor who operates a medical procedure without the patient's valid prior consent based on wrong diagnosis commits professional negligence resulting in injury, and the patient's invalid consent do not preclude wrongfulness'. However, if a health care provider conducts a completely non-consensual treatment or substitute surgeon without consent, the action should be plead in battery, not negligence, but if a health care provider violate his duty of care in obtaining the consent of the patient by failing to disclosure all relevant information (risks) that a reasonable person would deem significant in making a decision to have the procedure, the action should be plead in negligence, not battery. Therefore, the scope of patients' self-determination can be protected by stating clearly the scope of the duty of the informed consent and the exemption of the informed consent legislatively, it is considered that it is valid to legislate the limitation of the discretionary power.