• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.18 no.1
• /
• pp.297-341
• /
• 2017

We searched out court rulings on medical affairs through court library search sites and specialized articles on medically relevant judgments sentenced in 2016. And we selected and analyzed the judgements of the court we considered important as follows. In relation to the medical civil judgements, (1) In the case of applying surgery for female infertility during cesarean section operation but it has not been done, we expressed the regret for the lack of judgment in the process of entering the medical contract, introducing the rights infringed and the scope of compensation, (2) We pointed out that the ruling on the medical malpractice estimation goes out of limit of negligence estimation doctrine, and that the court asked very high degree duty of the traditional Korean medicine doctors to cooperate with Western medicine doctors. (3) In the case of admitting hospital's 100% responsibility, we pointed out the court overlooked the uncertainty and good intention of the medical practice. (4) Additionally, We introduced the cases admitted the hospital's responsibility in the accident related to the psychiatric patients in closed ward. Relating to a medical criminal ruling, we analyzed the supreme court decision about whether the dentist's Botox injection on the patient's face is a medical practice within the scope of the license from the viewpoint whether it is within the possible range of the word. And, concerning decisions on healthcare administration, (1) we analyzed the case about when medical personnel operate multiple medical institutions, whether it is possible to get back medical care costs under the National Health Insurance Law, (2) We commented on the ruling regarding explanation obligation in terms of object, degree, subject of explanation as a prerequisite for permissible arbitrary uninsured benefits. Finally, we reviewed the decision of the Constitutional Court about the Article 24 of the Mental Health Law, which it had allowed for a mental patient to be hospitalized forcibly by the consent of two guardians and a diagnosis of a psychiatrist. Also we indicated the problems of the revised Mental Health Law.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.17 no.2
• /
• pp.177-219
• /
• 2016

A commercial advertisement is not only a way of competition but also a medium of communication. Thus, it is under the constitutional protection of the freedom of business (article 15 of the Constitution) as well as the freedom of press [article 21 (1) of the Constitution]. In terms of the freedom of business or competition, it should be noted that an unfair advertising (false or misleading advertisement) can be regulated as an unfair competition, while any restraint on advertising other than unfair one might be doubted as an unjustifiable restraint of trade. In terms of the freedom of press or communication, it is important that article 21 (2) of the Constitution forbids any kind of (prior) censorship, and the Constitutional Court applies this restriction even to commercial advertising. In this article, the applicability of these schemes to advertising of the so-called learned professions, especially physician, are to be examined, and some proposals for the reformation of the current regulatory regime are to be made. Main arguments of this article can be summarized as follows: First, the current regime which requires advance review of physician advertising as prescribed in article 56 (2) no. 9 of Medical Act should be reformed. It does not mean that the current interpretation of article 21 of the Constitution is agreeable. Though a commercial advertising is a way of communication and can be protected by article 21 (1) of the Constitution, it should not be under the prohibition of censorship prescribed by article 21 (2) of the Constitution. The Constitutional Court adopts the opposite view, however. It is doubtful that physician advertising needs some prior restraint, also. Of course, there exists severe informational asymmetry between physicians and patients and medical treatment might harm the life and health of patients irrevocably, so that medical treatment can be discerned from other services. It is civil and criminal liability for medical malpractice and duty to inform and not regulation on physician advertising, to address these differences or problems. Advance review should be abandoned and repelled, or substituted by more unproblematic way of regulation such as an accreditation of reviewed advertising or a self-regulation preformed by physician association independently from the Ministry of Health and Welfare or any other governmental agencies. Second, the substantive criteria for unfair physician advertising also should correspond that of unfair advertising in general. Some might argue that a learned profession, especially medical practice, is totally different from other businesses. It is performed under the professional ethics and should not persue commercial interest; medical practice in Korea is governed by the National Health Insurance system, the stability of which might be endangered when commercial competition in medical practice be allowed. Medical Act as well as the condition of medical practice market do not exclude competition between physicians. The fact is quite the opposite. Physicians are competing even though under the professional ethics and obligations and all the restrictions provided by the National Health Insurance system. In this situation, regulation on physician advertising might constitute unjustifiable restraint of competition, especially a kind of entry barrier for 'new physicians.'

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.19 no.2
• /
• pp.41-72
• /
• 2018

In the division of labor (or teamwork) in medicine, the responsibility of medical and nursing staff should be separated or distributed to justify negligent criminal offenses. The present work refers to the standards by which the due diligence and responsibility of the individual persons are to be determined and delimited. In this context, it has been proven that objective theory as a measure of due diligence is appropriate. From a moral point of view, when assessing due diligence, it makes sense to impose greater individual or higher performance demands on the perpetrator, but law and order require that due diligence should result from socially relevant human behavior. To give objective measure of negligence and to provide the highest level of personal responsibility, so that man can not be burdened too much responsibility and it is accordingly with an equality theorem. Afterwards some points are presented, which should be considered in a concrete fact in the determination of the medical negligence. Medical action has specific characteristics such as professionalism, discretionary and exclusive, unbalance of information. These characteristics distinguish medical actions from general negligence. The general level of knowledge, the urgency, working condition and working environment of the medical facility, duration of the professional practice, assessment of the medical activity are crucial in this context. As a standard of delineation of due diligence, I have used the permitted risk and the principle of trust. In the horizontal division of labor, the principle of trust applies. The principle of trust applies in principle in cases of division of labor interaction, when doctors in the same hospital exercise their own specific occupational field or everyone works in another hospital. However, this is not true for every case. In the vertical division of labor, the principle of trust does not apply and the senior physician can not trust the assistant doctors. In this case, the principle of trust is converted into a duty of supervision for assistant doctors by the senior physician. This supervision requirement could be used as a random check.