• Journal of The Korean Society of Clinical Toxicology
• /
• v.3 no.1
• /
• pp.1-10
• /
• 2005

Gastric lavage is now known to be ineffective, unnecessary or hazardous in some circumstances where it used to be performed as a routine. This article concerns the medico-legal aspect of forced gastric lavage. The Supreme Court 2005.1.28, 2003da14119 is the case where a patient, who ingested the organophosphate insecticide to attempt suicide and refused lavage. At first we discuss the effectiveness or hazards of lavage because a very high degree of proof -of negligence, not error of clinical judgment - would be required. Lavage, with or without the informed consent, performed negligently which result in harm could, of course, give rise to a claim in negligence. A doctor might also be held negligent in failing to perform an act which he/she had a duty to perform.

• Journal of Korean Academy of Rural Health Nursing
• /
• v.18 no.1
• /
• pp.19-26
• /
• 2023

Purpose: This study was to evaluate the effects of a blended-learning based bioethics program on perceived ethical confidence, critical thinking disposition, moral sensitivity, and academic self-efficacy of the nursing students living in S city. Methods: The program was conducted 13 sessions (2 hours/session) and evaluated for perceived ethical confidence, critical thinking disposition, moral sensitivity, and academic self-efficacy. The collected data were analyzed with descriptive statistics and paired t-test using the SAS 9.4 program. Results: The blended learning based bioethic program was found to be effective for perceived ethical confidence (t=8.70, p<.001), critical thinking disposition(t=8.96, p<.001), moral sensitivity (t=6.43, p<.001), academic self-efficacy (t=20.5, p<.001), and program satisfaction(t=4.92, p<.001). Conclusion: The results of this study suggest that a blended learning program including TBL has advantages of case-based discussion and active interaction for nursing students' bioethics education.

• The Journal of KAIRB
• /
• v.5 no.1
• /
• pp.21-32
• /
• 2023

Purspose: The purpose of this study is to examine the meaning and definition of vulnerable subjects in clinical trials in light of domestic and international regulations and guidelines, to analyze the contents of standard operation procedures (SOPs) among advanced general hospitals in Korea that conduct clinical trials, and to examine deliberation procedures for operation plans. Methods: The study examined how vulnerable research subjects were defined and described in related regulations and the classification of vulnerable research subjects presented in the IRB/HRPP SOPs of 18 clinical trial institutions, including 11 AAHRPP-accreditated general hospitals in Korea, as well as the operation of the IRB deliberation. Results: Among all domestic and international regulations and guidelines, only the The Council for International Organization of Medical Sciences (CIOMS) guidelines explain why vulnerability is related to judgments on the severity of physical, psychological, and social harm, why individuals are vulnerable, and for what reasons. However, the classification of vulnerable subjects by institutions differed from the classification by the International Conference on Harmonization-Good Clinical Practice (ICH-GCP). A total of the 16 institutions classified children and minors as vulnerable research subjects. 14 institutions classified subjects who cannot consent freely were classified as vulnerable subjects. 15 institutions classified sujects who can be affected by the organizational hierarchy were classified as vulnerable subjects. Subjects in emergency situations were regarded as vulnerable research subjects in 8 of institutions, while people in wards, patients with incurable diseases, and the economically poor including the unemployed were categorized as vulnerable research subjects in 7, 4, and 4 of institutions, respectively. Additionally, some research subjects were not classified as vulnerable by ICH-GCP but were classified as vulnerable by domestic institutions 15 of the institutions classified pregnant women and fetuses as vulnerable, 11 classified the elderly as vulnerable, and 6 classified foreigners as vulnerable. Conclution: The regulations and institutional SOPs classify subjects differently, which may affect subject protection. There is a need to improve IRBs' classifications of vulnerable research subjects. It is also necessary to establish the standards according to the differences in deliberation processes. Further, it is recommended to maintain a consistent review of validity, assessment of risk/benefit, and a review using checklists and spokeperson. The review of IRB is to be carried out in a manner that respects human dignity by taking into account the physical, psychological, and social conditions of the subjects.