• 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.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.

• 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.

• 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.2 no.1
• /
• pp.408-441
• /
• 2001

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.4 no.2
• /
• pp.348-376
• /
• 2003

• 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.15 no.2
• /
• pp.3-29
• /
• 2014

The Supreme Court made a decision that the doctor cannot be punished for not taking a blood transfusion to the patient, depending on the patient's will to refuse the blood transfusion on June 24, 2014. The reason is that, in a special situation of conflict between the right of patients to self-determination and the duty of care, and when it was impossible to compare whether which has the superior value, if the doctor made a medical practice to respect either of those two values according to the professional sense, he cannot be punished. In principle, the doctor should make medical practices according to the patient's will. However, if the patient's life was at stake, I think, the doctor is obliged to try his best to save the life of patient. Yet to entrust the patient's life to the doctors professional sense, is to give up the obligation of the country to protect lives. In this regard, I think that the Supreme Court Decision should be reviewed, and that an ongoing research is needed.

• Journal of the Korea Convergence Society
• /
• v.10 no.11
• /
• pp.543-555
• /
• 2019

The purpose of this study was to define and clarify the concept of Shared decision-making (SDM) in patients with chronic disease. Walker and Avant's concept analysis process was used to analyze interdisciplinary convergence in SDM. SDM in patients with chronic disease can be defined by the following attributes: acknowledgment patients as 'self-care experts', the rights of self-determination, reversible negotiation, and patient-centered care. The antecedents of SMD consisted of situations where there is a need to make a decision from several treatment options of similar efficacy, decisional conflict, patient, family, and health provider's willingness to participate in the decision-making process, enough time and opportunity for SDM. The consequences occurring as a result of SMD were decrease decisional conflict, improvement health outcome, satisfaction, quality of life, enhancement self-management and self-efficacy with long-term, and living acceptably with the illness. Based on these results, a scale measuring SDM in patients with chronic disease is needed.