• 의료법학
• /
• 제15권1호
• /
• pp.303-333
• /
• 2014

The right to self-determination in regard to one's body is a key element of human dignity, privacy and freedom. It is constitutionally enshrined in the guarantee of human dignity, in the general right of personality and, most concretely of all, in the right to physical integrity. In principle No-one may trespass another person's body against his will, whether this act improves his physical condition or not. This right of self-determination applies equally to healthy and to sick people. Hence everyone has the right either to permit or to refuse a medical treatment, unless he can not make a rational decision. If the person does not consent himself, for whatever reason, another one must do for him as guardian. Representation in consent to medical treatment is therefore the exception of self-determination rule. This article explored, 1. who can consent to the medical treatment in the case of the mentally incapacitated adult and the infant, 2. what kind of consent to the medical treatment can the deputy determinate for the mentally incapacitated adult and the infant, 3. when the deputy can not determinate without permission of the court, and 4. what can the doctor do in the case of conflict between minors and guardians.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제23권1호
• /
• pp.37-80
• /
• 2022

이 논문에서는 현행 응급의료에 관한 법률이 규정하고 있는 응급의료에서의 설명·동의의 원칙과 응급의료거부죄를 검토함으로써 응급의료종사자의 환자에 대한 생명보호 의무가 환자의 자기결정권 보장보다 중요한 경우에 한하여 응급의료거부죄가 성립함을 제시한다. 응급의료에서도 일반 의료상황과 마찬가지로 의료행위 시행 전 환자에게 응급의료의 필요성이나 방법 등에 관하여 설명하고 동의를 받아야 함이 원칙이다. 다만, 설명·동의 절차를 예외적 방법으로 이행하거나 생략할 수 있음에도 그 절차 준수를 이유로 응급의료를 거부·기피한 응급의료종사자는 응급의료거부금지에 따른 행정처분과 행정벌을 부담하게 된다. 즉, 설명·동의 절차 생략 가능성에 관한 판단에 따라 응급의료거부죄가 성립할 수도 있는 것이다. 환자가 미성년이거나 의사결정능력이 없는 경우 그 법정대리인이 환자의 의학적 이익에 반하는 결정을 하더라도 법정대리인의 의견이 무조건적으로 존중되는 것은 아니다. 미성년 환자도 원칙적으로 자신의 신체에 관하여 결정할 권리가 있고, 법정대리인의 결정 역시 환자의 최선의 이익을 위한 것일 때 유효하기 때문이다. 환자가 치료를 거부하는 상황에서도 원칙적으로 응급의료종사자의 생명보호의무가 더 우선한다. 그러나 현행법은 여러 예외 상황에 대해 명문의 규정을 두고 있지 않아 응급의료 현장에서 그 해석에 어려움이 있다. 한편, 우리 대법원 및 하급심 판례는 응급의료종사자의 응급의료의무와 설명의무 사이의 이익형량이 불가피한 상황에서 환자의 생명상실이 문제되는 경우 설명의무보다 응급의료를 시행하여 환자의 생명을 보호하여야 할 의무가 우선이고, 예외적으로 사전에 치료 여부·방법에 대해 환자의 진지한 숙고가 있었던 경우 환자의 자기결정권이 응급의료의무와 대등하게 고려될 수 있다는 취지로 설시하고 있으므로, 이를 체계적으로 정리하고자 한다. 나아가 현행법의 해석만으로 해결이 어려운 부분에 대하여는 1) 미성년자에 대한 응급의료의무 조항 신설, 2) 응급환자의 의사결정능력 판단 기준을 의학적 내용을 중심으로 수정·보완, 3) 응급처치시 의료인의 추가 동의가 불요함을 명시, 4) 복수의 의견 충돌이 있는 경우에 대한 제도적 보완, 5) 응급의료 중단시 벌칙조항 신설 등 입법 과제를 제시한다.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제13권1호
• /
• pp.249-293
• /
• 2012

Inter-hospital transfer, depending on its medical and legal appropriateness, affect the prognosis of patients and can even lead to legal disputes. As Emergency Medical Service Act, any physician shall, in case where deemed that pertinent medical service is unavailable for such patient with the capacities of the relevant medical institution, transfer without delay such patient to another medical institution where a pertinent medical service is available. For medico-legally appropriate inter-hospital transfer, the head of a medical institution shall, in case where he transfers an emergency patient provide medical instruments and manpower required for a safe transfer of the emergency patient, and furnish the medical records necessary for a medical examination at the medical institution in receipt of such patient. And transfer process must comply with the requirements prescribed by executive rule such as attachment of the referral, provision of ambulance, fellow riders and informed consent of transfer. Those engaged in emergency medical service shall explain an emergency medical service to an emergency patient and secure his consent. In addition to the duty to inform about emergency medical service to the patient and his or her legally representative, there is also a duty for doctors to sufficiently explain to the patient and his or her legally representative during inter-hospital transfer that the need for the transfer, the medical conditions of the patient to be transferred and emergency treatment that will be provided by the hospital from which the patient is going to transferred. Likewise, the hospital to which the patient is transferred must be thoroughly informed about matters such as the patient's conditions, the treatment the patient was given and reasons for transfer by transferring doctors.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제16권2호
• /
• pp.3-26
• /
• 2015

수술행위는 신체에 대한 침습을 포함하는 것이므로 의료인은 수술주체와 수술행위의 내용을 충분히 설명하여 환자가 그 수술을 받을 것인지의 여부를 선택하도록 하여야 하고, 이는 헌법 제10조에서 규정한 개인의 인격권과 행복추구권에 의하여 보호되는 환자의 자기결정권에 해당한다. 미국에서는 '대리수술'의 경우 폭행에 해당한다고 판단한 사례가 있으나, 국내에서는 아직까지 수술의사에 대한 상해죄 등을 인정한 사례가 없고, 수술행위는 환자의 신체에 대한 적대적인 손상행위가 아니므로 상해죄로 처벌하기 어려운 면이 있다. 또한 환자의 '가정적 승낙'을 폭넓게 인정하는 판례의 입장에 따르면 의사의 전단적 의료행위에 대하여 업무상과실치사상죄로 처벌하기도 어려우므로, 환자의 자기결정권 강화를 위하여 의사의 설명의무를 의료법 등에 명문화하고, 대리수술 등 전단적 의료행위에 대하여 별도의 처벌규정을 입법화할 필요가 있다.

• 한국치위생학회지
• /
• 제15권5호
• /
• pp.881-887
• /
• 2015

Objectives: The purpose of the study was to investigate the awareness toward the informed consent in the dental hygienists and the patients before treatment. Methods: A self-reported questionnaire was completed by 200 dental hygienists and 200 dental patients in Changwon after explaining the purpose of the study from June 15 to September 15, 2014. The questionnaire was developed as two types for the dental hygienists and the patients. The questionnaire consisted of general characteristics of the subjects, awareness toward the informed consent before treatment, and experience before the treatment. Results: In the necessity of informed consent, 49.5% of dental hygienists and 72.0% of the patients answered that informed consent is very necessary. In the written informed consent, 33.3% of dental hygienists and 54.9% of the patients answered that the dispute can always happen during treatment. Conclusions: The informed consent is recognized as a defensive means for medical malpractice. For the sake of the dental hygienists and the patients, mutual respect and compromise is the very important factor.

• Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society
• /
• 제60권4호
• /
• pp.385-390
• /
• 2017

The doctrine of informed consent, as opposed to medical paternalism, is intended to facilitate patient autonomy by allowing patient participation in the medical decision-making process. However, regrettably, the surgical informed consent (SIC) process is invariably underestimated and reduced to a documentary procedure to protect physicians from legal liability. Moreover, residents are rarely trained in the clinical and communicative skills required for the SIC process. Accordingly, to increase professional awareness of the SIC process, a brief history and introduction to the current elements of SIC, the obstacles to patient autonomy and SIC, benefits and drawbacks of SIC, planning of an optimal SIC process, and its application to cases of an unruptured intracranial aneurysm are all presented. Optimal informed consent process can provide patients with a good comprehension of their disease and treatment, augmented autonomy, a strong therapeutic alliance with their doctors, and psychological defenses for coping with stressful surgical circumstances.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제5권2호
• /
• pp.294-319
• /
• 2004

Because the treatment of a physician generally pertains to the intrusion into body of a patient, his/her consent is a must in order for such conduct to be justifiable. To ensure effective consent of a patient, the physician should fully inform him/her of kind and details of the disease and way of treatment and risks associated with it. The patient can, then, make a decision whether he/she should accept any treatment or operation, if necessary, on the basis of such information. The obligation of physicians to explain has since long been recognized as important in view of guaranteeing the rights of patients for self-decision and protecting them from arbitrary assessment of physicians for treatment. Progress has been made in this respect even to the extent that physicians treat patients on equal terms and think first of all much of establishing trustworthy relationships with patients. Lots of studies in Korea and foreign countries have tried to explore the issues concerning the obligation of physicians to explain in the meantime but seem to have failed to make concrete and versatile approaches from the standpoint of protecting the rights of patients. Wouldn't it be really possible for patients to perceive their own rights and cope actively with the medical treatments? If physicians have full understanding to the rights of patients, they will be put in a better situation to protect themselves and patients, in turn, can identify their own responsibility correctly, which will eventually contribute to fulfilling the goal of treatment. With this background, the present paper examines briefly the obligations of physicians for explanation based mainly on the preceding theories and judicial precedents in the first place and then deals with the status quo and contents of the German medical laws, with a focus on the treaty of European Law 1997 and its working document on the applications of genetics for health purposes that stipulate the detailed criteria on the medical treatment and rights of patients and Germany's $\ulcorner$Charter of Rights for Patients$\lrcorner$ promulgated in 2003.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제10권1호
• /
• pp.389-420
• /
• 2009

Main Issue of Supreme Court Decision 2005Da16713 Delivered on June 24, 2005 is about the duty of medical care in the interhospital transfer of patients. According to the above Supreme Court Decision, in the interhospital transfer of patients, the decision to transfer should make from the aspect of medical treatment. The hospitals and doctors keep the duty of medical care. In addition to the duty for hospitals/doctors to check the capacity and availability of the hospital to which the patient is transferred, there are also duties to inform about emergency medical service and to sufficiently explain the need for the transfer, the medical conditions of the patient to be transferred and the hospital from which the patient is transferred. The hospital to which the patient is transferred must be thoroughly informed about matters such as the patient's conditions, the treatment the patient was given and reasons for transfer. including information upon referral, completeness of medical records, patient monitoring and so on. The interhospital transfer requires the consent of doctor belonging to the hospital to which the patient is transferred after the consideration of capacity and availability of the hospital and the informed consent of patients or legal representatives.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제21권1호
• /
• pp.3-32
• /
• 2020

판례는 의사의 위험설명의무 위반에 대하여 그것과 환자의 동의 사이의 인과관계가 불분명한 때에는 위자료를 지급할 의무를 지우고, 인과관계가 증명되는 경우에는 민사상 전손해배상, 형사상 업무상과실치사상의 책임을 묻는다. 그러나 어느 경우든 설명하지 아니한 위험이 실현될 것을 요구한다. 그 결과 대부분의 사안에서 위자료책임이 인정되었는데, 이는 위험설명의 대상이 되는 위험을 매우 넓게 인정하는 또 다른 판례와 결합하여 의료과오가 증명되지 아니할 때 우회적·간접적으로 일정 부분 배상을 확보하는 사실상의 기능을 갖는다. 그러나 의사의 설명의무가 의료문화로 정착해가면 갈수록 설명의무 위반이 줄어들고 그 결과 어쩌다 우연적으로 약간의 배상을 제공하는 외에는 오히려 설명대화를 위험의 형식적 나열로 변질시키는 부작용이 두드러지게 된다. 본래 설명의무는 환자의 자기결정을 돕기 위한 것이므로 발생한 악결과가 설명의무 위반에 귀속되는지 여부도 환자의 구체적 자기결정과정을 고려하여 가려야 한다. 즉, 환자가 특정 위험에 대하여 특별한 선호를 갖고 있는 경우에는 그 위험이 제대로 설명되었는지, 그리고 제대로 설명되지 아니한 바로 그 위험이 실현되었는지를 보아 그것이 인정되는 경우 전손해배상을 인정함이 옳고, 그 이외의 경우, 특히 환자가 전체적으로 자신이 감수하는 수준의 위험과 기대효과에 노출된 것인지에만 관심을 갖는 경우에는 개개의 위험의 설명 여부나 그 실현 여부를 문제 삼지 아니하는 것이 옳다. 뒤의 경우 세부사항을 설명하지 아니하였는데 그 위험이 실현되었다 하여 인과관계와 귀속관련을 고려하지 아니한 채위자료 상당의 책임을 인정하는 것은 정당화되기 어렵다. 이러한 점은 형사법에서 피해자 승낙에 의한 위법성조각에도 타당하다. 이 경우 이른바 가정적 승낙은 위법성조각사유로서 동의의 요건 자체에 흡수되고 독자적인 항변이 되지 아니하는 것이다.

• KSII Transactions on Internet and Information Systems (TIIS)
• /
• 제15권12호
• /
• pp.4400-4419
• /
• 2021

In the 4th Industrial Revolution, the healthcare industry is undergoing a paradigm shift from post-care and management systems based on diagnosis and treatment to disease prevention and management based on personal precision medicine. To optimize medical services for individual patients, an open ecosystem for the healthcare industry that allows the exchange and utilization of personal health records (PHRs) is required. However, under the current system of hospital-centered data management, it is difficult to implement the linking and sharing of PHRs in practice. To address this problem, in this study, we present the design and implementation of a patient-centered PHR platform using blockchain technology. This platform achieved transparency and reliability in information management by eliminating the risk of leakage and tampering/altering personal information, which could occur when using a PHR. In addition, the patient-consent system was applied to a PHR; thus, the patient acted as the user with ownership. The proposed blockchain-based PHR platform enables the integration of personal medical information with scattered distribution across multiple hospitals, and allows patients to freely use their health records in their daily lives and emergencies. The proposed platform is expected to serve as a stepping stone for patient-centered healthcare data management and utilization.