• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.19 no.1
• /
• pp.81-111
• /
• 2018

Recently in Korea, public interest about patient safety has increased because patient safety incidents occurred continuously. In addition, as the way of coping with medical personnel and medical institutions after occurrence of patient safety incident became controversial, the necessity of introducing apology law and disclosure law was raised. We analyzed the contents of apology law and disclosure law in U.S.A and critically examined the legislative movements in Korea. First, the Apology law requires that a medical personnel provide apology, consolation, sympathy to the patient for discomfort, pain, damage or death, and that the expression of apology shall be inadmissible as evidence of an admission of liability in civil action or administrative proceeding. The Apology law is divided into 'full apology law' and 'partial apology law' depending on whether mistake, error, fault, liability, and legal liability shall be inadmissible. Meanwhile, Disclosure law enforces or voluntarily enforces the law to communicate with the patient regarding the disclosure of the incident, the cause of incident, the compensation plan, and the measures to prevent the recurrence in the adverse incident that serious harm to the patient. In Korea, the concern about patient safety incidents has been amplified, and as the importance of communication between the medical personnel and patient has been recognized, the revision bill for the "Patient Safety Act", which adopted the U.S.A apology or disclosure law, was submitted to the National Assembly. The purpose of this study was to critically review the contents of the revised legislation based on the analysis of the apology law and disclosure law in U.S.A. and to provide implications for future legislative direction.

• Health Policy and Management
• /
• v.25 no.3
• /
• pp.174-184
• /
• 2015

This paper reviewed structure and current status of laws related to patient safety using patient safety law matrix to promote systematic approach in legal system of patient safety. Laws related to patient safety can be divided into three areas: laws for preventing; laws for knowing about; and laws for responding. In the case of Korea, gaps are especially prominent in the areas of laws for knowing about and responding. Patient safety law which will be enacted in July 2016 will fill the gap in the area of laws for knowing about. This law will be comprehensive law, covering the full spectrum of laws related to patient safety. However, after reviewing current patient safety law in Korea, the following drawbacks were identified: absence of code for grasping the current patient safety level; absence of code for mandatory reporting in patient safety reporting system; and absence of code for privilege about patient safety work product. Furthermore we need wider discussions about covering issues of open disclosure, apology law, coroners system, and complaint management system in patient safety law.

• Health Policy and Management
• /
• v.11 no.1
• /
• pp.87-106
• /
• 2001

There has been a series of struggles around the governmental enforcing separation of prescribing and dispensing since the consensus for the policy at May 10, 1995, and the strike among the physicians nationwide at June 19, 2000. This thesis is to review the process of the affair as a whole and find out some achievements and lessons from it. Most visible achievement is that physicians have obtained governmental apology for the enforcing the unprepared policy, and promise to revise the Law on the Pharmaceutical Affairs, to enlarge governmental support for the medical insurance program, to construct a presidential committee for the reformation of medical affairs, and so on. Besides these achievements, physicians have learned much on the relations among them and with society in general. However this is only the first scene on the road to an extensive transformation in the medical area following more critical Issues on the medical reformation.

• The Journal of the Korea Contents Association
• /
• v.12 no.10
• /
• pp.159-168
• /
• 2012

Freedom of speech is indispensable in Democracy. It is a rink among government agencies. Mass media as institutionalized means which forms public opinion impacts quite a few to a society. Mass media as a life media in our daily lives has characteristics of speed and prompt report. It is difficult to measure the effect on a society. Mass media is a lifeline in democracy because it has freedom of opinion for seeing, listening, speaking, and criticizing about the people's right to know in an information society. Our Constitution also guarantees freedom of the press, information(peoples's right to know), report, the collection of news, and edition. Because an unnecessary thing about a privacy is reported by mass media, it can violate defamation. This study seeks to be unbiased in reporting and what the principles of the Constitution for minimizing an invasion of a person's privacy is. This study also seeks freedom of speech and the right to know. In case that a personal honor is invaded by a mass media and a publication, this study provides the Constitution basis, Criminal Law basis, and Civic Law basis for remedy violation. A report for apology on newspaper and by television was widely used as "a proper punishment for honor recovery in the past". The constitutional court had decided that including the report of apology for "a proper punishment of honor recovery" in the article 764 of the Civic Law as a reason of freedom of conscience and the violation of personal rights was against the Constitution. Therefore, this study examples what is a legal remedy in practical?, where is legal basis of special remedy in the Civic Law, and what is a method by the Press Arbitration Law compared with the examples of other countries. On the other hand, because a mass media may injure a person's honor and infringe a person's privacy, if the report is categorized as a malicious press, the true role which mass media has to do may not demonstrated. In conclusion, this study was to minimalize infringement of mass media to a person and to seek a realistic alternative of a legal remedy.

• Journal of Environmental Health Sciences
• /
• v.43 no.1
• /
• pp.1-22
• /
• 2017

'The worstest environment disaster', 'World's first biocide massacre', 'Home-based Sewol ferry disaster' are all phrases attached to the recent humidifier disinfectant disaster. In the spring of 2011, four of 8 pregnant women including 1 adult man passed away at a university hospital in Seoul due to breathing failure. Epidemiologic investigation conducted by the Korean CDC soon revealed the inhalation of humidifier disinfectant, which had been widely used in Korea during the winter, to be responsible for the disease. As well as lung fibrosis hardening of the lungs, other diseases including asthma, rhinitis, skin disease, liver disease, fetal disease or cancers have been researched for their relation with exposure to the products. By February 9, 2017, 5,342 cases had registered for health problems and 1,131 of them were already dead (20.8% mortality rate). Based on studies by government agencies and a telephone survey of the general population by Seoul National University and civic groups, around 20% of the general public of Korea has used these products. Since the market release of the first product by SK Chemical in 1994, over 7.1 million items from around 20 brands were sold up to 2011. Most of the products were manufactured by well-known large conglomerates such as SK, Lotte, Samsung, Shinsegye, LG, and GS, as well as some European companies including UK-based Reckitt Benckiser and TESCO, the German firm Henkel, the Danish firm KeTox, and an Irish company. Even though this disaster was unveiled in 2011 by the Korean government, the issue of the victims was neglected for over five years. In 2016, an unexpected but intensive investigation by prosecutors found that Reckitt Benckiser manipulated and concealed animal tests for its own brand and brought several university experts and company employees to court. The matter was an intense social issue in Korea from May to June with a surge in media coverage. The prosecutor's investigation and a nationwide boycott campaign organized by victims and environmental groups against Reckitt Benckiser, whose product had been used by more than 70% of victims, led to the producer's official apology and a compensation scheme. A legislative investigation organized after the April 2016 national election revealed the producers' faults and the government's responsibility, but failed to meet expectations. A special law for the victims passed the National Assembly in January 2017 and a punitive system together with a massive environmental epidemiology investigation are expected to be the only solutions for this tragedy. Sciences of medicine, toxicology and environmental health have provided decisive evidence so far, but for the remaining problems the perspectives of social sciences such as sociology and jurisprudence are highly necessary, similar to with the Minamata disease and Wonjin Rayon events. It may not be easy to follow this issue using unfamiliar terminology from medical and chemical science and the long, complicated history of the event. For these reasons the author has attempted to write this article in a question and answer format to render it easier to follow. The 17 questions are: Q1 What is humidifier disinfectant? Q2 What kind of health problems are caused by humidifier disinfectant? Q3 How many victims are there? Q4 What is the analysis of the 1,112 cases of death? Q5 What is the problem with the government's diagnostic criteria and the solution? Q6 Who made what brands? Q7 Has there been a recall? What is still on sale? Q8 Was safety not checked by any producers? Q9 What are the government's responsibilities? Q10 Is it true that these products were sold only in Korea? Q11 Why and how was it unveiled only in 2011 after 17 years of sales? Q12 What delayed the resolution of the victim issue? Q13 What is the background of the prosecutor's investigation in early 2016? Q14 Is it possible to report new victim cases without evidence of product purchase? Q15 What is happening with the victim issue? Q16 How does it compare with the cases of Minamata disease and Wonjin Rayon? Q17 Are there prevention measures and lessons?