• 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.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제30권1호
• /
• pp.39-66
• /
• 2020

Under the doctrine of separability, if the party did not specifically challenge the validity of the arbitration clause, then it is presumed valid, and arbitrators would still have authority to adjudicate disputes within the scope of the arbitration clause. Further, the Primerica and Spahr decisions address whether a court or an arbitrator should adjudicate a claim that a contract containing an arbitration clause is void ab initio due to mental incapacity. If the arbitration agreement is separable, as was found in Primerica, then the "making" of the agreement is not at issue when the challenge is directed at the entire contract and arbitrators may exercise authority. If an arbitration provision is not separable from the underlying contract, as in Spahr, a defense of mental incapacity necessarily goes against both the entire contract and the arbitration agreement, so the "making" of the agreement to arbitrate is at issue, and the claim is for courts to decide. Although no bright line rule can be established to deal with challenges of lack of mental capacity to an arbitration agreement, the rule in Prima Paint should not be extended to this defense. Extending the rule in Prima Paint would force an individual with a mental incapacity to elect between challenging the entire contract and challenging arbitration. Accordingly, there should be a special set of rules outside of the context of Prima Paint to address the situation of status-based defenses, specifically mental capacity defenses, to contracts containing arbitration provisions.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제16권1호
• /
• pp.221-254
• /
• 2015

개정된 민법은 2013년 7월 1일부터 시행되고 있다. 개정된 민법에서 가장 중요한 것은 성년후견제도 이다. 100개 이상의 조문이 개정되었으며, 개정된 민법은 후견인이 필요한 사람들의 다양하고 복잡한 요구를 충족시카는 체계와 적법한 절차를 마련하였다. 새로운 성년후견제도는 피성년후견인의 보호를 위해 그들의 자율성을 지켜주고 공적인 개입을 최소화함으로써 피성년후견인의 존엄성과 인권을 존중하려고 했다. 새로운 성년후견제도는 세 가지 종류의 법정후견제도를 가지고 있다(성년후견제도, 한정후견제도, 특정후견제도). 정신질환자는 정신보건법에 의해 입원이 이루어지고 이때 정신질환자는 동의능력이 없는 것으로 대부분 여겨지지만 원칙적으로 정신질환자는 동의능력을 가지고 있는 경우가 있다. 정신질환자와 후견인 사이에 이해상충이 발생할 경우 정신질환자의 동의가 우선된다. 정신질환자가 동의능력이 없는 경우에만 후견인의 동의에 의해 의료행위를 할 수 있는 것이 타당하다. 그러나 정신질환자가 동의능력이 없는 경우에는 후견인에 의해 문제가 발생할 경우에는 후견감독인을 두어 후견인에 대한 감독을 해야 한다. 결론적으로 정신질환자라고 하여 입원에 대한 동의능력을 상실한 것은 아니며 우리는 정신질환자의 동의범위에 대해 구체적으로 논의해야 한다. 따라서 개정 민법에 따라 정신보건법 개정이 필요하다.