• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.18 no.2
• /
• pp.105-138
• /
• 2017

This is case comments of several representative legal cases regarding self- determination right of patient. In a case in which an intoxicated patient attempted suicide refusing treatment, the Supreme Court ruled that the medical team's respect for the patient's decision was an act of malpractice, and that in particular medical situations (medical emergencies) the physician's duty to preserve life supersedes the patient's rights to autonomy. Afterwards, at the request of the patient's family, and considering the patient's condition (irrecoverable death stage, etc.) consistent with a persistent vegetative state, the Supreme Court deduced the patient's intention and decide to withdraw life-sustaining treatment. More recently, regarding patients who refuse blood transfusions or other necessary treatment due to religious beliefs, the Supreme Court established a standard of judgment that can be seen as conferring equal value to the physician's duty to respect patient autonomy and to preserve life. An empirical study of legal precedent with regard to cases in which the physician's duty to preserve life conflicts with the patient's autonomy, grounded in respect for human dignity, can reveal how the Court's perspective has reflected the role of the patient as a decision-making subject and ways of respecting autonomy in Korean society, and how the Court's stance has changed alongside changing societal beliefs. The Court has shifted from judging the right to life as the foremost value and prioritizing this over the patient's autonomy, to beginning to at least consider the patient's formally stated or deducible wishes when withholding or withdrawing treatment, and to considering exercises of self determination right based on religious belief or certain other justifications with informed refusal. This will have a substantial impact on medical community going forward, and provide implicit and explicit guidance for physicians who are practicing medicine within this environment.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.23 no.4
• /
• pp.75-102
• /
• 2022

In this article, 「Act on the hospice and palliative care and decisions on life-sustaining treatment for patients at the end of life」, 「Act On The Improvement Of Mental Health And The Support For Welfare Services For Mental Patients」, 「Organs Transplant Act」, 「Safety And Management Of Human Tissue Act」, 「Pharmaceutical Affairs Act」, 「Prevention Of Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome Act」, 「Tuberculosis Prevention Act」, 「Infectious Disease Control And Prevention Act」 were reviewed. Patients' right to self-determination and consent in these laws are related to civil law. even though they are closely related to the civil law in relation to patients' right to self-determination and consent. In order to consistently operate medical administration, it is necessary to understand the principles of civil law decision-making.

• 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.

• Information Systems Review
• /
• v.20 no.1
• /
• pp.159-177
• /
• 2018

With an extensive proliferation of information and communication technology, the volume and amount of digital information collected and utilized on the Internet have been increasing rapidly. Also on the rapid rise are side effects such as unintended breach of accumulated personal information and consequent invasion of personal privacy. Informational self-determination is rarely practiced, despite various states' legal efforts to redress data subjects' damage. Personal health information, in particular, is a subcategory of personal information where informational self-determination is hardly practiced enough. The observation is contrasted with the socio-economic inconvenience that may follow due to its sensitive nature containing individuals' physical and health conditions. This research, therefore, reviews factors of self-determination on personal health information while referring to the protection motivation theory (PMT), the long-time framework to understand personal information protection. Empirical analysis of 200 data surveyed reveals threat-appraisal (perceived vulnerability and perceived severity of threats) and coping-appraisal (perceived response effectiveness), in addition to individual levels of concern regarding provided personal health information, influence self-determination to protect personal health information. The research proposes theoretical findings and practical suggestions along with reference for future research topics.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.20 no.2
• /
• pp.43-82
• /
• 2019

In Korea surrogate medical decision makings happen without legal grounds. The purpose of this article is to research the issues in preparing policies for decision-making on behalf of unrepresented patients. As aspects of comparative law, there are two approaches. One of them is to regulate default surrogate list. If no agent or guardian has been appointed, some legislatures provide that members of patient's family who is reasonably available, in descending order of priority of not, may act as surrogate: (1) the spouse, unless legally separated; (2) an adult child; (3) a parent; or (4) an adult brother or sister. If none of them is eligible to act as surrogate, some legislatures allow close friends to make health-care decisions for adult individuals who lack capacity. On the other hand there are other legislatures which provide no surrogate decision maker list but oblige the responsible authority to determine with advice of family members or friends of the patient. In the end the first approach can not guarantee that the surrogate decision maker like family members or friends will determine in the best interest of the patient.

• Korean Journal of Medical Ethics
• /
• v.21 no.4
• /
• pp.301-315
• /
• 2018

Women have been entrusted with responsibility for pregnancy, childbirth, and nurturing by means of socially imposed 'maternity' along with their physical characteristics. Abortion too involves the bodies of women, and women are the ones most affected by it. However, women do not yet have the right of self-determination over their bodies. In the "pro-choice versus pro-life" abortion debate in South Korea, women's self-determination is often treated with less significance than the alleged "respect for life." Moreover, as Korea's declining fertility rate has become a serious social problem, women's perspectives on the issue of abortion have been sidelined. Yet even in this context, there is a double standard between the treatment of disabled and able-bodied women. The purpose of this study is to examine the issue of self-determination, especially for women with disabilities, from the perspective of a capability approach. The following three recommendations are proposed: (a) that the various contextual variables of disabled women are included in the concept of self-determination; (b) that a solid relationship between individuals and communities is established in order to ensure the realization of the right of self-determination for disabled women; and (c) that the discourse of "reproduction rights" (i.e. comprehensive rights of women with disabilities) be expanded.

• Proceedings of the Korean Society of Computer Information Conference
• /
• 2019.07a
• /
• pp.195-198
• /
• 2019

연명의료결정법의 정식 명칭은 '호스피스 완화의료 및 임종 과정에 있는 환자의 연명의료 결정에 관한 법'이다. 이 법은 호스피스 완화의료에 대한 것과 환자의 연명의료 결정에 대한 것을 규정하고 있다. 특히, 후자의 연명의료결정에 관한 부분은 법제정 과정에서 법 종교 의료 윤리 등 다양한 분야에서 논박이 있었지만 2018년 2월 4일부터 시행되고 있다. 법학에서는 이 법이 생명이라는 법익과 관련되어 있어 형사법적, 민사법적으로 중요한 의미를 갖는다. 이 법이 탄생되기 위해 두 번의 변곡점이 있었다. 첫째, 1997년 '보라매병원 사건'에서 의사를 작위에 의한 살인방조죄로 판결한 사건 둘째, 2009년 '김 할머니' 사건에서 회생할 수 없을 경우 가족 등이 진술한 환자 의사에 따라 연명 의료를 중단할 수 있다는 대법원 판결이다. 연명의료결정법은 헌법상 생명권과 자기운명결정권이라는 기본권 충돌이 발생한다. 두 기본권이 서로 상충 할 때에는 어떠한 기본권을 우선해야 하는지가 실질적으로 문제되는데, 이익형량을 통한 규범의 조화로운 해석을 통해 해결해야 한다. 또한 이 법의 흠결과 문제점을 고찰하여 개정작업이 진행되어야 한다.

• 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.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.17 no.2
• /
• pp.257-279
• /
• 2016

Recently, the Well-dying Act was legislated in Korea, and it will come into effect in August 4, 2017. This Act allows to withdraw the life sustaining treatment from impending death patients and also provide the hospice and palliative treatment to terminal patients. In the Supreme Court's case so called "Madam Kim", medical condition of Madam Kim was a persistent vegetative status owing to brain damage and her family members wanted to remove the artificial ventilation. In 2009, the Supreme Court allowed to withdraw the artificial ventilation under the specific conditions. We applied this new Well-dying Act to the Madam Kim's case hypothetically in order to know this Act can reasonably solve the problem of life sustaining treatment for dying or terminal patients. For the impending patients, the Well-dying Act has the problem not to withdraw the futile treatment due to the advance directives of patients. Vice versa, the terminal patients have no chance to withdraw the life sustaining treatment due to the this Act impose the duty to provide the hospice and palliative treatment despite of advance directives. We need to ruke out the persistent vegetative patients from the terminal patients caused by the cancer, acquired immune deficiency syndrome, chronic obstructive lung disease and chronic liver cirrhosis, In addition, we have to discuss the effect of the advance directives of terminal patients in view of self determination right.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.23 no.1
• /
• pp.37-80
• /
• 2022

By analyzing informed consent and the refusal of emergency medical treatment (called patient dumping) under the current Emergency Medical Service Act, this study suggests that an emergency medical professional is only liable for patient dumping if their duty to protect the patient's life takes precedence over the patient's right to self-determination. In emergency medical situations, as in general medical situations, medical treatment should be performed after the emergency medical professional informs the patient about the medical treatment, including its necessity and methods, and obtains consent from the patient. Refusing or evading the performance of emergency medical services on the excuse of the informed consent not considering a waiver or alteration of informed consent requirements without reasonable reasons violates the Emergency Medical Service Act and thus makes an emergency medical professional liable to administrative disposition or criminal penalty. In other words, depending on the existence of a waiver of alteration of the informed consent, patient dumping may be established. If the patient is a minor or has no decision-making ability, and their legal representative makes a decision against the patient's medical interests, the opinion of the legal representative is not unconditionally respected. A minor also has the right to decide over their body, and the decisions of their legal representatives should be in the patient's best interests. If the patient refuses treatment, in principle, the obligation of life protection of emergency medical professionals is the top priority. However, making these decisions in the aforementioned situations in the emergency medical field is difficult because of the absence of explicit regulations regarding these exceptional problems. This study aims to organize the following precedents of the Supreme Court of Korea. The court states that, when balancing the conflicting interests between the duty to provide emergency medical service and the duty to inform is unavoidable for emergency medical professionals, they should put the duty to protect the patient's life ahead of the duty to inform if the patient's life matters. Exceptionally, when a patient has seriously considered whether they should receive treatment before the emergency medical situation, their right to self-determination can be considered equal to the obligation of emergency medical professionals to provide emergency medical treatment. This research also suggests that an amendment of the Emergency Medical Service Act should include the following. First, the criteria for determining the decision-making ability of emergency patients should consist of medical content. Second, additional consent from a medical professional is unnecessary for first-aid treatment. Finally, new provisions for emergency medical obligations for minors, new provisions for the decision standard when there are conflicting opinions about the treatment of a patient, and new penalty provisions for professionals who suspend emergency medical examinations and treatments need to be established.