• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.24 no.2
• /
• pp.147-196
• /
• 2023

Advances in brain science have made it possible to stimulate the brain to treat brain disorder or to connect directly between the neuron activity and an external devices. Non-invasive neurotechnologies already exist, but invasive neurotechnologies can provide more precise stimulation or measure brainwaves more precisely. Nowadays deep brain stimulation (DBS) is recognized as an accepted treatment for Parkinson's disease and essential tremor. In addition DBS has shown a certain positive effect in patients with Alzheimer's disease and depression. Brain-computer interfaces (BCI) are in the clinical stage but help patients in vegetative state can communicate or support rehabilitation for nerve-damaged people. The issue is that the people who need these invasive neurotechnologies are those whose capacity to consent is impaired or who are unable to communicate due to disease or nerve damage, while DBS and BCI operations are highly invasive and require informed consent of patients. Especially in areas where neurotechnology is still in clinical trials, the risks are greater and the benefits are uncertain, so more explanation should be provided to let patients make an informed decision. If the patient is under guardianship, the guardian is able to substitute for the patient's consent, if necessary with the authorization of court. If the patient is not under guardianship and the patient's capacity to consent is impaired or he is unable to express the consent, korean healthcare institution tend to rely on the patient's near relative guardian(de facto guardian) to give consent. But the concept of a de facto guardian is not provided by our civil law system. In the long run, it would be more appropriate to provide that a patient's spouse or next of kin may be authorized to give consent for the patient, if he or she is neither under guardianship nor appointed enduring power of attorney. If the patient was not properly informed of the risks involved in the neurosurgery, he or she may be entitled to compensation of intangible damages. If there is a causal relation between the malpractice and the side effects, the patient may also be able to recover damages for those side effects. In addition, both BCI and DBS involve the implantation of electrodes or microchips in the brain, which are controlled by an external devices. Since implantable medical devices are subject to product liability laws, the patient may be able to sue the manufacturer for damages if the defect caused the adverse effects. Recently, Korea's medical device regulation mandated liability insurance system for implantable medical devices to strengthen consumer protection.

• Radiation Oncology Journal
• /
• v.27 no.4
• /
• pp.181-188
• /
• 2009

Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate the results of postoperative radiotherapy in a case of perihilar cholagiocarcinoma by analyzing overall survival rate, patterns of failure, prognostic factors for overall survival, and toxicity. Materials and Methods: Between January 1998 and March 2008, 38 patients with perihilar cholangiocarcinoma underwent a surgical resection and adjuvant radiotherapy. The median patient age was 59 years (range, 28 to 72 years), which included 23 men and 15 women. The extent of surgery was complete resection in 9 patients, microscopically positive margins in 25 patients, and a subtotal resection in 4 patients. The tumor bed and regional lymphatics initially received 45 Gy or 50 Gy, but was subsequently boosted to a total dose of 59.4 Gy or 60 Gy in incompletely resected patients. The median radiotherapy dose was 59.4 Gy. Concurrent chemotherapy was administered in 30 patients. The median follow-up period was 14 months (range, 6 to 45 months). Results: The 3-year overall survival and 3-year progression free survival rates were 30% and 8%, respectively. The median survival time was 28 months. A multivariate analysis showed that differentiation was the only significant factor for overall survival. The 3-year overall survival was 34% in R0 patients and 20% in R1 patients. No statistically significant differences in survival were found between the 2 groups (p=0.3067). The first site of failure was local in 18 patients (47%). No patient experienced grade 3 or higher acute toxicity and duodenal bleeding developed in 2 patients. Conclusion: Our results suggest that adjuvant RT might be a significant factor in patients with a positive margin following a radical resection. However, there was still a high locoregional recurrence rate following surgery and postoperative radiotherapy. Further study is necessary to enhance the effect of the adjuvant radiotherapy.