• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.20 no.1
• /
• pp.163-201
• /
• 2019

Doctor has the duty of an inter-hospital transfer, known as inter-facility or secondary transfer, when the diagnostic and therapeutic facilities required for a patient are not available at the given hospital. Also, the decision to transfer the patient to an another facility is rely on whether ill patient is the benefits of care, including clinical and non-clinical reasons, available at the another facility against the potential risks. Crucial point to note is that issues about 'inter-hospital transfer' is limited to questions occurred in the course of transfer between emergency medicals (facilities). 'emergency medical (facility)' is specified by Medical Law, article 3 and the duty of an inter-hospital transfer includes any possible adverse events, medical or technical, during the transfer. Because each medical facility has an different ability to care for a patient in an emergency condition, coordination between the referring and receiving hospitals' emergency medicals would be important to ensure prompt transfer to the definitive destination avoiding delay at an emergency. Simultaneously, transfer of documents about the transfer process, medical record and investigation reports are important materials for maintaining continuity of medical care. Although the duty of an inter-hospital transfer is recognized as one of duty of doctor and more often than not it occurs, there is constant legal conflict between a doctor and a patient related to the duty of the inter-hospital transfer. Therefore, we need clear and specific legal standard about the inter-hospital transfer. This paper attempts to review the Supreme Court's cases associated to the inter-hospital transfer and to compare opinion of the cases with guideline for an inter-hospital transfer already given. Furthermore, this article is intended to broaden our horizons of understanding the duty of an inter-hospital transfer and I wish this article helps to resolve the settlement and case dealt with the duty of inter-hospital transfer.

• 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.24 no.3
• /
• pp.27-55
• /
• 2023

The term "Collaborative medical care" commonly used in South Korea refers to the case where doctors from different medical departments work together to treat a patient within the same medical institution. Therefore, "Collaborative medical care" represents the aspect of a medical team where various medical professionals collaborate based on their expertise to treat patients. Additionally, doctors from different specialties within the medical team engage in horizontal division of labor at an equal status, distributing legal responsibilities according to the principles of division of labor. The Supreme Court also acknowledges cases where multiple doctors collectively provide medical treatment through division of labor or collaboration and states that the doctor who initially attended to the patient must accurately inform the subsequent attending doctor about the patient's condition to enable appropriate measures. In medical institutions with multiple specialties, when doctors from different specialties collaborate to provide medical treatment, the doctor who attended to the patient initially must decide whether collaboration is necessary based on the patient's condition. Subsequently, they must inform the doctor from the relevant specialty about the patient's condition accurately to facilitate appropriate actions. The successor doctor who participates in collaborative medical care must actively communicate relevant treatment information related to the patient's condition with the predecessor doctor who requested collaboration, exchange opinions, and do so until the patient's treatment concludes. However, the determination of the necessity of collaborative medical care should be based on the patient's condition at the time, and it cannot be asserted that collaborative medical care is mandatory in all cases. Whether there is negligence in the decision about the necessity of collaboration will be assessed based on the legal principles of a doctor's duty of medical care.

• The Journal of the Korean dental association
• /
• v.36 no.7 s.350
• /
• pp.503-512
• /
• 1998

건강과 의료에 관심이 높아지면서 의료수요는 날로 증가하게 되었고 이에 따르는 의료분쟁 또한 증가하는 추세이다. 본의 아니게 발생한 의료사고는 의료분쟁으로 발전하게 되는데 과실과 악결과 그리고 이에 따르는 인과관계와 책임여부를 따지게 된다. 이를 규명하기 위해서는 의료인은 주의의무와 설명의무를 잘 수행했는지와 환자 또한 의무를 잘 수행했는지를 평가하게 된다. 일단 의료분쟁이 생기지 않도록 최선의 진료와 환자와의 대화가 요구되며 분쟁시 화해, 조정, 소송 등으로 해결하며 이 과정 각각에서의 준비와 대책을 세워야 할 것이다. 현재의 상황에서 언제 어디서 일어날지 모르는 의료분쟁을 방지하려면 진료기술의 숙련도를 높이고 발전하는 새로운 의학 정보를 얻는데 게으르지 말아야하며 특히 환자를 대하는데 진단, 치료과정, 치료의 후유증, 위험성에 관한 자세한 설명을 통하여 환자 스스로 결정할 수 있는 의료환경이 요구되며 가장 기본적인 의료기록부 작성에 관심을 가져야 할것이다.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.13 no.1
• /
• pp.91-123
• /
• 2012

Doctors and patients for the purpose of healing and treatment of disease through the contract will make a relationship. Doctors perform the medical practice for the state and illness of patient. Given that the patient did not cooperate in the doctor's medical practice, it is difficult to achieve the goal of disease healing. If the patient don't cooperate the medical care, and it is linked with a doctor's medical malpractice, patient's violation of obligation in medical cooperation is considered with negligence on the part of patients. However, this negligence should be limited to obvious cases that the patient's behavior is unreasonable although the doctor provides medical information to patients and induced the patient's response. Also, patient's violation of obligation in medical cooperation must result in adjusting the indemnification via a setoff of fault except the cases having causal relationship between doctor's fault and malpractice.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.15 no.2
• /
• pp.317-343
• /
• 2014

In order to account for whether a doctor should indemnify damages resulted from violation of duty of care, the fact that a doctor violated duty of care, that damages were incurred, and the link between violation of duty of care and damages incurred, respectively, should be verified. So even though a doctor violated duty of care to patients, he or she will not bear the responsibility to indemnify damages unless it is not verified. If a doctor's negligence in medical practices is assessed that obviously unfaithful medical practice far exceeds the limit of admission of a patient, it will not go against people's general perception of justice or law and order to constitute a medical malpractice itself as an illegal action that will require liabiliy for damage. However, when the limit of admission is set too low, a patient's benefit and expectation of proper medical treatment can be violated. In contrast, if the limit of admission is set high, it can leave too little room for doctors' discretion for treatments due to a bigger risk of indemnification for damages. Thus, a reasonable balance that can satisfy both benefit and expectation of patients and doctors' right to treatment is needed.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.7 no.1
• /
• pp.178-201
• /
• 2006

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.1 no.1
• /
• pp.49-94
• /
• 2000

• Journal of the Korea Safety Management & Science
• /
• v.14 no.3
• /
• pp.291-298
• /
• 2012

의료조직의 팀제는 산업계의 팀과는 다르다. 산업계의 팀 구성원들이 팀원으로서 단일의 지위, 책임, 직무를 가지고 있고, 팀장에 의하여 평가받을 것이다. 그러나 의료조직의 진료팀 구성원들은 일반적으로 팀 구성원과 기능적 부문의 구성원으로서 이중의 지위, 책임과 의무를 유지하고 있다. 그렇기 때문에 진료팀에 있어서는 상호간의 의사소통을 활성화시킬 수 있는 더욱 향상된 노력이 필요하고 다양한 분야의 전문가들을 통합할 수 있는 임파워먼트된 리더십이 필요한 것이다. 실증분석은 대학병원에 소속되어 있는 진료팀 구성원들에 대한 조사를 통하여 수집되었다. 실증분석 결과는 정교하게 설계된 팀 전략이 적용되어야 함을 제시하고 있다. 팀 구성원들은 팀 요인이 확인되어야 하고 리더십과 의사소통에 의하여 검토되어야 하는 개념으로 인식하는 것으로 분석되었다. 즉, 팀 요인은 필요조건이고 팀 요인에 기반한 팀 과정이 팀 성과를 향상시키는 충분조건이라는 것이다.

• 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.