• 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.

• Tuberculosis and Respiratory Diseases
• /
• v.44 no.4
• /
• pp.785-795
• /
• 1997

Background : Tumor markers have been used in diagnosis, predicting the extent of disease, monitoring recurrence after therapy and prediction of prognosis. But the utility of markers in lung cancer has been limited by low sensitivity and specificity. TPA-M is recently developed marker using combined monoclonal antibody of Cytokeratin 8, 18, and 19. This study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of new tumor marker, TPA-M by comparing the estabilished markers SCC, CEA, Cyfra21-1 in lung cancer. Method : An immunoradiometric assay of serum CEA, sec, Cyfra21-1, and TPA-M was performed in 49 pathologically confirmed lung cancer patients who visited Keimyung University Hospital from April 1996 to August 1996, and 29 benign lung diseases. Commercially available kits, Ab bead CEA (Eiken) to CEA, SCC RIA BEAD (DAINABOT) to SCC, CA2H (TFB) to Cyfra2H. and TPA-M (DAIICHI) to TPA-M were used for this study. Results : The mean serum values of lung cancer group and control group were $10.05{\pm}38.39{\mu}/L$, $1.59{\pm}0.94{\mu}/L$ in CEA, $3.04{\pm}5.79{\mu}/L$, $1.58{\pm}2.85{\mu}/L$ in SCC, $8.27{\pm}11.96{\mu}/L$, $1.77{\pm}2.72{\mu}/L$ in Cyfra21-1, and $132.02{\pm}209.35\;U/L$, $45.86{\pm}75.86\;U/L$ in TPA-M respectively. Serum values of Cyfra21-1 and TPA-M in lung cancer group were higher than control group (p<0.05). Using cutoff value recommended by the manufactures, that is $2.5{\mu}/L$ in CEA, $3.0{\mu}/L$ in Cyfra21-1, 70.0 U/L in TPA-M, and $2.0{\mu}/L$ in SCC, sensitivity and specificity of lung cancer were 33.3%, 78.6% in CEA, 50.0%, 89.7% in Cyfra21-1, 52.3%, 89.7% in TPA-M, 23.8%, 89.3% in SCC. Sensitivity and specificity of nonsmall cell lung cancer were 36.1%, 78.1% in CEA, 50.1%, 89.7% in Cyfra21-1, 53.1%, 89.7% in TPA-M, 33.8%, 89.3% in SCC. Sensitivity and specificity of small cell lung cancer were 25.0%, 78.5% in CEA, 50.0%, 89.6% in Cyfra21-1, 50.0%, 89.6% in TPA-M, 0%, 89.2% in SCC. Cutoff value according to ROC(Receiver operating characteristics) curve was $1.25{\mu}/L$ in CEA, $1.5{\mu}/L$ in Cyfra2-1, 35 U/L in TPA-M, $0.6{\mu}/L$ in SCC. With this cutoff value, sensitivity, specificity, accuracy and kappa index of Cyfra21-1 and TPA-M were better than CEA and SCC. SCC only was related with statistic significance to TNM stages, dividing to operable stages(TNM stage I to IIIA) and inoperable stages (IIIB and IV) (p<0.05). But no tumor markers showed any correlation with significance with tumor size(p>0.05). Conclusion : Serum TPA-M and Cyfra21-1 shows higher sensitivity and specificity than CEA and SCC in overall lung cancer and nonsmall cell lung cancer those were confirmed pathologically. SCC has higher specificity in nonsmall cell lung cancer. And the level of serum sec are signiticantly related with TNM staging.

• Journal of Yeungnam Medical Science
• /
• v.14 no.2
• /
• pp.399-414
• /
• 1997

There are several factors concerning to anemia in chronic renal failure patients. But when rHuEPO is used, most of these factors can be overcome, and the levels of hemoglobin are increased. However, about 10% of the renal failure patients represent rHuEPO-resistant anemia eventhough high dosage of rHuEPO. For these cases, desferrioxamine can be applied to correct rHuEPO resistnacy, and many mechanism of DFO are arguing. So we are going to know whether DFO can be applied to correct anemia of the such patients, how long its effect can be continued. The seven pateients as experimental group(DFO+EPO) who represent refractoriness to rHuEPO and the other seven patients as control group(EPO) were included. Experimental group had lower than 9 g/dL of hemoglobin levels despite high rHuEPO dosage (more than 4000U/Wk) and showed normocytic normochromic anemia. There were no definitve causes of anemia such as hemorrhage or iron deficiency. Control group patients had similar characteristics in age, mean dialysis duration but showed adequate response to rHuEPO. DFO was administered to experimental group for 8 weeks along with rHuEPO(the rHuEPO individual mean dosage had been determined by mean dosage of the previous 6 months. Total mean dosage; 123.5 U/Kg/Wk). After 8 weeks of DFO administration, the hemoglobin and rHuEPO dosage levels were checked for 15 consecutive months. It should be noted that the patients determined their own rHuEPO dosage levels according to hemoglobin levels and economic status. In conrol group, rHuEPO was administered by the same method used in experimental group without DFO through the same period. Fifteen months of observation period after DFO trial were divided as Time I(7 months after DFO trial) and Time II(8 months after Time I). The results are as follows: Before DFO trial, mean hemoglobin level of experimental group was 7.8 g/dL, which is similar level(p>0.05) to control group(mean Hb; 8.2 g/dL). But in experimental group, significantly(p<0.05) higher dosages of rHuEPO(mean; 123.5 U/Kg/Wk) than control group (mean; 41.6 U/Kg/Wk) had been used. It means resistancy to rHuEPO of experimental group. But after DFO trial, the hemoglobin levels of the experimental group were increased significantly(p<0.05), and these effect were continued to Time II.(Time I; mean 8.6g/dL, Time II; mean 8.6g/dL) The effects of DFO to hemoglobin were continued for 15 months after DFO trial with similar degree through Time I, Time II. Also, rHuEPO dosages used in the experimental group were decreased to similar levels of the control group after DFO trial and these effect were also continued for 15 months(Time I; mean 48.1 U/Kg/Wk. Time II; mean 51.8 U/Kg/Wk). In the same period, hemoglobin levels and rHuEPO dosages used in the control group were not changed significantly. Notibly, hemoglobin increment and rHuEPO usage decrement in experimental group were showed maxilly in the 1st month after DFO trial. That is, after the use of DFO, erythopoiesis was enhanced with a reduced rHuEPO dosage. So we think rHuEPO reisistancy can be overcome by DFO therapy. In conclusion, the DFO can improve the anemia caused by chronic renal failure at least over 1 year, and hence, can reduce the dosage of rHuEPO for anemia correction. Additional studies in order to determine the mechanism of DFO on erythropoiesis and careful attention to potential side effects of DFO will be needed.