• Journal of Legislation Research
• /
• no.44
• /
• pp.465-485
• /
• 2013

Mit dem Patientenrechtegesetz, das im $Fr{\ddot{u}}jahr$ 2013 in Kraft treten soll, $f{\ddot{u}}rt$ der Gesetzgeber eine jahrzehntelange Diskussion um die Rechte von Patientinnen und Patienten zu einem guten Ende. Demnach geht es darum, Transparenz ${\ddot{u}}ber$ die bereits heute bestehenden, umfangreichen Rechte der Patientinnen und Patienten herzustellen, die $tats{\ddot{a}}chliche$ Durchsetzung dieser Rechte zu verbessern, zugleich Patientinnen und Patienten im Sinne einer verbesserten Gesundheitsversorgung zu $sch{\ddot{u}}tzen$ und insbesondere im Fall eines Behandlungsfehlers $st{\ddot{a}}rker$ zu $unterst{\ddot{u}}tzen$. In Verfolgung dieser Zwecke $schl{\ddot{a}}gt$ die Bundesregierung ein Artikelgesetz vor, dessen wesentliche Teile das BGB und das Recht der sozialen Krankenversicherung betreffen. In das BGB soll ein neuer Abschnitt ${\ddot{u}}ber$ den "Behandlungsvertrag" $eingef{\ddot{u}}gt$ werden. Als Standort ist der ${\ddot{U}}bergang$ vom Dienstin das Werkvertragsrecht vorgesehen, der um die neu zu schaffenden Vorschriften der ${\S}{\S}$ 630 a bis 630 h BGB erweitert wird. Die acht Paragrafen enthalten im Kern eine Kodifikation der von der Rechtsprechung entwickelten $Grunds{\ddot{a}}tze$ zur Arzthaftung. Der Beitrag stellt die bisherige politische Diskussion des Patientenrechtegesetzes vor (II). Im Anschluss daran wird die einzige wesentliche Neuerung des Gesetzes $n{\ddot{a}}her$ untersucht und werden Regelungsziel und Grundkonzept der Kodifikation einer $Pr{\ddot{u}}fung$ unterzogen (III). $Schlie{\ss}lich$ werden einen politischen Ausblick auf die neuen Herausforderungen und die Bewertung der $gegenw{\ddot{a}}rtigen$ Lage und der erwarteten Entwicklung gezogen (IV).

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.17 no.2
• /
• pp.145-173
• /
• 2016

A patient's Right to Self-Determination or his/her Right of Autonomy in the Republic of Korea has traditionally been understood as being composed of two elements. The first, is the patient's Right to Know as it pertains to the physician's Duty to Report [the Medical Situation] to the patient; the second, is the patient's Right to Consent and Right of Refusal as it pertains to the physician's Duty to Inform [for Patient's Consent]. The legal and ethical positions pertaining to the patient's autonomous decision, particularly those in the interest of the patient's not wanting to know about his/her own body or medical condition, were therefore acknowledged as passively expressed entities borne from the patient's forfeiture of the Right to Know and Right to Consent, and exempting the physician from the Duty to Inform. The potential risk of adverse effects rising as a result of applying the Informed Consent Dogma to situations described above were only passively recognized, seen merely as a preclusion of the Informed Consent Dogma or a denial of liability on part of the physician. In short, the legal measures that guarantee a patient's 'Wish for Ignorance' are not currently being understood and acknowledged under the active positions of the patient's 'Right Not to Know' and the physician's 'Duty to Consideration' (such as the duty not to inform). Practical and theoretical issues arise absent the recognition of these active positions of the involved parties. The question of normative evaluation of cases where a sizable amount of harm has come up on the patient as a result of the physician explaining to or informing the patient of his/her medical condition despite the patient previously waiving the Right to Consent or exempting the physician from the Duty to Inform, is one that is yet to be addressed; that of ascertaining direct evidence/legal basis that can cement legality to situations where the physician foregoes the informing process under consideration that doing so may cause harm to the patient, is another. Therefore it is the position of this paper that the Right [Not to Know] and the Duty [to Consideration] play critical roles both in meeting the legal normative requirements pertaining to the enrichment of the patient's Right to Self-Determination and the prevention of adverse effects as it pertains to the provision of [unwanted] medical information.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.21 no.3
• /
• pp.117-144
• /
• 2020

In accordance with Article 15 of the Medical Law, medical personnel in Korea cannot refuse treatment of a patient unless there is a justifiable reason, and violation of this obligations is subject to criminal penalties. Japan also stipulates the same content in the law. However, this violation of obligations in Japan is not subject to criminal penalties, and is used as a judgment element of the liability for damages of doctors only in the case of damage to the patient. However, in both countries, it is difficult to interpret and apply the law because the regulation is a little ambiguous. In particular, the key is to find out what is the justifiable reason for the doctor to refuse treatment of the patient. Recently, Japan has completed the work of re-examining the discussion on medical refusal from a modern perspective in terms of improving the excessive working environment of doctors. On the other hand, in Korea, it is not clear in what cases it is possible to refuse treatment. because there is a lack of systematic discussion on medical refusal. Rather, unnecessary misunderstandings and controversies have resulted in the loss of trust between patients and doctors. In Korea, there is already a legal right for a doctor to reject it according to his religious beliefs or conscience in the implementation of the suspension of life-sustaining treatment decisions. And in the case of an abortion, debates are underway that doctors should be given the right to refuse it. This study introduces the current state of discussion in Japan, and examines the issues surrounding medical refusal in Korea. It is hoped that this study will facilitate further discussions on the medical refusal.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.16 no.2
• /
• pp.27-53
• /
• 2015

Recently, a plastic surgery hospital in Seoul, has been raided following suspicions that ghost surgery was performed by an unauthorized substitute surgeon on a chinese woman who lapsed into a death. Following the incident, an organization to eradicate ghost surgery was created in March by Consumers Korea, founded to protect consumer rights, and the Korea Alliance of Patients Organization. The organization has received reports of illegal medical practices. To substitute another physician without the patient's consent and without his knowledge of the substitution is fraud and deceit and a violation of a basic ethical concept. The patient as a human being is entitled to choose his own physician and he should be permitted to acquiesce in or refuse to accept the substitution. It should be noted that it is the operating surgeon to whom the patient grants his consent to perform the operation. The patient is entitled to the services of the particular surgeon with whom he contracts. The surgeon, in accepting the patient, obligates himself to utilize his personal talents in the performance of the operation to the extent required by the agreement creating the physician-patient relationship. He cannot properly delegate to another the duties which the patient authorizes him to perform personally. 'Ghost surgery' comes under Article 257(Inflicting Bodily Injury on Other or on Lineal Ascendant) of the Criminal Code. Substitution another physician without the patient's consent and without his knowledge of the substitution shall be performed Inflicting Bodily Injury. This is a controversial issue that'ghost surgery' comes under Article 347(Fraud) of the Criminal Code. It maybe controversial that operation substituted by another physician without the patient's consent and without his knowledge of the substitution becomes the component of Fraud. Also, Ghost surgery' comes under Article 27 (Prohibition of Unlicensed Medical Practice, etc.), Article 22 (Medical Records, etc.), Article 33 (Establishment) of the Medical Service Act. The surgeon's obligation to the patient requires him to perform the surgical operation: (1) within the scope of authority granted him by the consent to the operation; (2) in accordance with the terms of the contractual relationship; (3) with complete disclosure of all facts relevant to the need and the performance of the operation; and (4) to utilize his best skill in performing the operation.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.25 no.1
• /
• pp.193-222
• /
• 2024

From a global trend, discussions on the patient's death with dignity are gradually progressing from the issue of withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment to the issue of whether to allow assisted death and its requirements. Several states in the United States and Western European countries such as Canada, Belgium, and the Netherlands have institutionalized treatment to accelerate the time of death through the assistance of doctors. In France, after a long period of raising and reviewing issues, discussions on related legislation are taking place at a slower pace than in other European countries. In France, social discussions and legislative attempts on death with dignity have been actively conducted since the late 20th century. The Leonetti Act of 2005 prohibited the continuation of meaningless treatment against the will of patients, and after the Clay-Leonetti Act of 2016, it was legalized to administer intensive and continuous sedatives to patients until death. However, unlike many neighboring European countries, treatment that speeds up the time of death itself is still prohibited in France, even if the patient wants. As the existential and universal question of whether to allow dying patients to die painlessly with the help of a doctor has recently emerged as an important issue, a number of lawmakers have submitted legislation to legalize assisted death. This paper examines the legislative process developed in relation to patients' rights to dignified death in France, and compares and reviews French legislation that attempts to legalize assisted death with the amendment to the Korean Life-Sustaining Treatment Act.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.23 no.2
• /
• pp.67-96
• /
• 2022

"Aid in Dying" means that when a decision-making patient suffers from an incurable disease, a drug that can speed up death is prescribed by a doctor and used to lead to death. Since the suspension of life-sustaining treatment was institutionalized based on human dignity and patient autonomy, the question of whether assisted death can be legally justified in relation to the right to receive medical help to shorten one's life to die with dignity has recently been actively discussed. In Korea, since the suspension of life-sustaining treatment was institutionalized by the enactment of the Life-sustaining Treatment Decision Act in 2016, an amendment to the Life-sustaining Treatment Act was recently proposed to legalize Aid in Dying. The global trend is that human "Right to Die" is discussed in the division of life and death, from the suspension of life-sustaining treatment to assisted death, and again in the order of euthanasia. In this paper, we started discussing dignified death and institutionalized patients' right to self-determination, looked at the controversy in the United States, which legislated assisted death in many states since the 2000s, and analyzed the main contents of California's End of Life Option Act and the data after enforcement. The strict requirements for Aid in Dying, such as voluntary confirmation of patients' intentions and doctors' obligation to provide information, and the results of California's Aid in dying system, composed of relatively diverse races, were reviewed.

• 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.21 no.2
• /
• pp.75-103
• /
• 2020

There is a growing voice that medical information should be shared because it can prepare for genetic diseases or cancer by analyzing and utilizing medical information in big data or artificial intelligence to develop medical technology and improve patient care. The utilization and protection of patients' personal information are the same as two sides of the same coin. Medical institutions or medical personnel should take extra caution in handling personal information with high environmental distinct characteristics and sensitivity, which is different from general information processors. In general, the patient's personal information is processed by medical personnel or medical institutions through the processes of collection, creation, and destruction. Still, the use of terms related to personal information in the Medical Service Act is jumbled, or the scope of application is unclear, so it relies on the interpretation of precedents. For the medical personnel or the founder of the medical institution, in the case of infringement of Article 24(4), it cannot be regarded that it means only medical treatment information among personal information, whether or not it should be treated the same as the personal information under Article 23, because the sensitive information of patients is recorded, saved, and stored in electronic medical records. Although the prohibition of information leakage under Article 19 of the Medical Service Act has a revision; 'secret' that was learned in business was revised to 'information', but only the name was changed, and the benefit and protection of the law is the same as the 'secret' of the criminal law, such that the patient's right to self-determination of personal information is not protected. The Privacy Law and the Local Health Act consider the benefit and protection of the law in 'information learned in business' as the right to self-determination of personal information and stipulate the same penalties for personal information infringement such as leakage, forgery, alteration, and damage. The privacy regulations of the Medical Service Act require that the terms be adjusted uniformly because the jumbled use of terms can confuse information subjects, information processors, and shows certain limitations on the protection of personal information because the contents or scope of the regulations of the Medical Service Law for special corporations and the Privacy Law may cause confusion in interpretation. The patient's personal information is sensitive and must be safely protected in its use and processing. Personal information must be processed in accordance with the protection principle of Privacy Law, and the rights such as privacy, freedom, personal rights, and the right to self-determination of personal information of patients or guardians, the information subject, must be guaranteed.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.24 no.2
• /
• pp.119-145
• /
• 2023

The Pharmaceutical Affairs Act stipulates medication counseling as an obligatory requirement in the case of preparation of medicine. In fact, there are many cases where pharmacists only tell patients the dose and time and do not properly guide them on taking medications. However, in light of the current situation where non-face-to-face treatment is being attempted, there is a high possibility of drug-taking accidents due to insufficient medication guidance. In addition, as an aging society progresses, the need for explanations on pharmaceuticals is increasing. If a pharmacist causes damage to a patient by failing to give appropriate medication guidance, the patient can claim compensation for damages. In addition, if a drug accident occurs due to a conflict between the pharmacist's duty to guide medication and the doctor's duty to explain, a joint tort is established between the pharmacist and the doctor. Nevertheless, there are cases in which only doctors are judged to bear the tort liability. However, the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act includes providing information for the selection of over-the-counter drugs in the medication guidance as part of the medication guidance obligation. Therefore, in order to reconsider the importance of the medication-taking guidance duty, it is necessary to define the medicationaking information provision method and the medication-taking guidance duty as separate concepts. In addition, it is necessary to amend related regulations centered on patients so that medication guidance, such as side effects of medicines and interactions with concomitant medications, can be made in detail.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.4 no.1
• /
• pp.255-294
• /
• 2003

This paper is relating to the debates upon the physicians' duty to issue the prescription documents to their patients. The duty should be approached in light of the patients' right to know about the prescription and pharmacy. The Korean Constitution is construed to protect the citizens' right to know as a fundamental right. The Constitution article 10 reads as follows: "All citizens shall be assured of human dignity and worth and have the right to pursue happiness. It is the duty of the State to confirm and guarantee the fundamental and inviolable human rights of individuals." The rights confirmed and guarantee by this article include the patients' right to know about what happens to their body, that is the treatments taken for them and so on. One of the treatments is the prescription and pharmacy. The information is necessary for them to establish their action for the damages in case of their harm resulted in by the negligence in prescription and pharmacy. Now that the prescription is written about by a physician and then the pharmacists compound the prescribed medicines, the patients need to get the documents signed by the pharmacists about the pharmacy. It should be noted that the patients right to know is the right to know and remember. Therefore the patients, who are laymen about the pharmacy, need two prescription documents one of which should be kept by them even after they take the prescribed and compounded medicines for the potential trial.