• The Journal of the Korea Contents Association
• /
• v.15 no.3
• /
• pp.78-87
• /
• 2015

Recently, Police integrity has been issued on the media, which cause discredit of police organization. Although high level of morality and integrity are required compared to other occupational groups due to their authority to exert legal force to the citizens and a variety of policies have been enforced by the National Police Agency for the purpose of uplifting the integrity of the officers, in reality, corruption had not yet been eradicated. At this point in time, this study attempted to draw implications for uplifting integrity by utilizing domestic and foreign preceding studies and statistical data related to police corruption and uplifting integrity. The inspection system through whistle-blowing was pointed out as a problem in the institutional framework that hinders uplifting integrity of the police officers and the perception in which police officers are regarded as potential criminals was also pointed out as a problem. Also, vague standards of disciplinary action in examining an offense of a police officer and lack of care for those who were disciplined in the past which affects loyalty to the organization were presented as problems. Based on such suggested concerns, policies for uplifting integrity and restoring citizens' trust in the policies officers were proposed. The proposed agenda were warning the police officers by presenting clear and specific category of corruptive behaviors, expressing the necessity of devising a system that prevents the officers from committing serious crimes by discovering problematic officers earlier through introduction of Early Warning System(EWS) of US and Australian police in order to break away from exposure-oriented inspection system, and reinforcing the testing of integrity in the new employment process.

• Journal of Science and Technology Studies
• /
• v.14 no.2
• /
• pp.85-125
• /
• 2014

This paper explores what we call 'the problem of undone social science' by examining the lack of interests in the social, ethical, and legal issues of synthetic biology among social scientists in Korea. This new field of science, which has emerged in the twenty-first century with the promise of solving future problems of energy, food, and disease in the world, has also created a considerable degree of anxiety over the issues of bioethics, biosafety, and biosecurity. From its beginning, therefore, researchers of synthetic biology in Europe and the U.S. have sought to engage social scientists in their projects. Yet scientists and social scientists in Korea have shown no sign of working together to deal with both potential benefits and risks of synthetic biology. Why this silence? What strategic moves would be needed to overcome the structural barrier for their collaboration? Surveying the diverse methodologies developed during and after ELSI (ethical, legal, social implications) experiments, this paper aims to provide three suggestions that might make possible mutually profitable and continuously stimulating dialogues between the two worlds of science and social science: first, institutionalize the ELSI studies on any newly emerging science and technology of concern; second, explore diverse post-ELSI methodologies experimented elsewhere and develop ones that might be applicable best to the Korean situation; and third and perhaps most important, create an intellectual space and a lawful protection for social scientists to exercise their research freedom at the reasonable level and receive a fair review by their peers, not solely by funding agencies and scientific organizations.

• Journal of Engineering Education Research
• /
• v.12 no.2
• /
• pp.24-35
• /
• 2009

This study was conducted to establish a principle on the fields of National Technical Qualification(NTQ), and aimed at developing criteria on requirements of the qualification that will be managed as the national technical qualification. In order to achieve the objective of the study, we examined the directions of setting the Jurisdiction of national technical qualification through role assignment between the state and private sectors. Also, we reviewed related documents, conducted Delphi survey, consulted the expert group and had an interview session for this study. There are five criteria of the jurisdiction of NTQ presented as follows. First is the field which disturbs social orders or has possibility of harming the good public morals; second, the field that requires high standards of ethics or is directly linked to life, health and safety of the public; third, the field which requires national attention for training of manpower as it is an area that is difficult for private sector to approach or it requires national management; fourth, the field which requires repair or maintenance of resources of traditional culture but is difficult for the private sector to have an access to and fifth, the field where it needs to protect the interest of the nation in the inter-nation relationships. The concrete and detailed standard on the five criteria is also presented in the study.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.15 no.1
• /
• pp.335-373
• /
• 2014

According to one Medicare report, in the US, total federal spending on health care expends almost 18 percent of the nation's GDP, about double what most industrialized nations spend on health care. And in 2011, Medicare spending reached close to $554 billion, which amounted to 21 percent of the total spent on U.S. health care in that year. Of that $554 billion, Medicare spent 28 percent, or about $170 billion, on patients' last six months of life. So what are the reasons of this high cost in EOL care and its possible solutions? Much spendings of Medicare on End-of-Life care for the terminally ill/chronically ill in the US has led health economics experts to assess the characteristics of the care. Decades of study shows that EOL care is usually supply-sensitive and poor in cost-effectiveness. The volume of care is sensitively depending on the supply of resources, rather than the severity of illness or preferences of patients. This means at the End-of-Life care, the medical resources are being overused. On the other hand, opposed to the common assumption, "The more care the better utility", the study shows that the outcome is very poor. Actually the patient preference and concerns are quite the opposite from what intense EOL care would bring about. This study analyzes the reasons for the supply-sensitiveness of EOL care. It can be resulted from the common misconception about the intense care and the outcome, physicians' mission for patients, lack of End-of-Life Care Decision which helps the patients choose their own preferred treatment intensity. It also could be resulted from physicians' fear of legal liabilities, and the management strategy since the hospitals are also seeking for financial benefits. This study suggests the possible solutions for over-treatment at the End-of-Life resulting from supply-sensitiveness. Solutions can be sought in two aspects, legal implementation and management strategy. In order to implement advance directive properly, active ethics education for physicians to change their attitude toward EOL care and more conversations about end-of-life care between physicians and patients is crucial, and incentive system for the physicians who actively have the conversations with patients will also help. Also, the general education towards the public is also important in the long run, and easy and official advance directive registry system-such as online registry-has to be built and utilized more widely. Alternative strategies in management are also needed. For example, the new strategic cost management and management education, such as cutting unnecessary costs and resetting values as medical providers have to be considered. In order to effectively resolve the problem in EOL care for the terminally ill/chronically ill and provide better experience to the patients, first of all, the misconception and the wrong conventional wisdom among doctors, patients, and the government have to be overcome. And then there should be improvements in systems and cultures of the EOL care.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.21 no.2
• /
• pp.105-162
• /
• 2020

In the pandemic of infectious disease, restrictions of individual liberty have been justified in the name of public health and public interest. In March 2020, the National Assembly of the Republic of Korea passed the revised bill of the 「Infectious Disease Control and Prevention Act.」 The revised bill newly established the legal basis for forced testing and disclosure of the information of confirmed cases, and also raised the penalties for violation of self-isolation and treatment refusal. This paper examines whether and how these individual liberty limiting clauses be justified, and if so on what ethical and philosophical grounds. The authors propose the theories of the philosophy of law related to the justifiability of liberty-limiting measures by the state and conceptualized the dual-aspect of applying the liberty-limiting principle to the infected patient. In COVID-19 pandemic crisis, the infected person became the 'Patient as Victim and Vector (PVV)' that posits itself on the overlapping area of 'harm to self' and 'harm to others.' In order to apply the liberty-limiting principle proposed by Joel Feinberg to a pandemic with uncertainties, it is necessary to extend the harm principle from 'harm' to 'risk'. Under the crisis with many uncertainties like COVID-19 pandemic, this shift from 'harm' to 'risk' justifies the state's preemptive limitation on individual liberty based on the precautionary principle. This, at the same time, raises concerns of overcriminalization, i.e., too much limitation of individual liberty without sufficient grounds. In this article, we aim to propose principles regarding how to balance between the precautionary principle for preemptive restrictions of liberty and the concerns of overcriminalization. Public health crisis such as the COVID-19 pandemic requires a population approach where the 'population' rather than an 'individual' works as a unit of analysis. We propose the second expansion of the harm principle to be applied to 'population' in order to deal with the public interest and public health. The new concept 'risk to population,' derived from the two arguments stated above, should be introduced to explain the public health crisis like COVID-19 pandemic. We theorize 'the extended harm principle' to include the 'risk to population' as a third liberty-limiting principle following 'harm to others' and 'harm to self.' Lastly, we examine whether the restriction of liberty of the revised 「Infectious Disease Control and Prevention Act」 can be justified under the extended harm principle. First, we conclude that forced isolation of the infected patient could be justified in a pandemic situation by satisfying the 'risk to the population.' Secondly, the forced examination of COVID-19 does not violate the extended harm principle either, based on the high infectivity of asymptomatic infected people to others. Thirdly, however, the provision of forced treatment can not be justified, not only under the traditional harm principle but also under the extended harm principle. Therefore it is necessary to include additional clauses in the provision in order to justify the punishment of treatment refusal even in a pandemic.