• 한국병원경영학회지
• /
• 제27권1호
• /
• pp.11-19
• /
• 2022

Purposes: This study was to investigate intention to exercise the patient's right of self-determination on adopting the non-benefit medical services and was to identify factors associated with intention to self-determined decision. Methodology: A total of 1,000 adult respondents aged 20 to 65 years were recruited using stratified random sampling and surveyed by online. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with intention to self-determined decision using SAS 9.4(SAS Institute Inc. Cary, NC, USA). Findings: 61.9% of total participants(n=592) had intention to exercise patient's right of self-determination on adopting the non-benefit medical services. Significant differences were observed in the exercise of self-determination in relation to prior explanation and opportunity for self-determination. Practical Implications: This study suggested that explanation duty of provider might influence on increasing intention to exercise the patient's right of self-determination. Considering appropriate use of non-benefit services, it is important to enhance explanation duty of provider.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제9권2호
• /
• pp.77-107
• /
• 2008

In Republic of Chaina (Taiwan), Natural Death Act named "Anning Huauhe Yiliao Tiaoli" which means palliative and hospice care act was enacted in year of 2000. And enforced in the same year. Many scholars say that Taiwan's Act took Many U.S.A.'s acts such as 'Federal Patient Self-Determination Act 1990', 'California Natural Death Act 1976' and 'Washington Natural Death Act 1979' for a model. Taiwan's Act adopts a few outstanding systems - 'advance declarations' including 'living will' and 'durable power of attorney for health care', 'family-determination system' for a patient who is in a persistent unconscious state. This paper disusses this Act. 'The content is as follow: 1. A background of legislation. 2. The purpose of legislation. 3. The concept of terms. 4. Patient's self-determination. 5. Subrogated determination by family. 6. Keeping documents. 7. Punitive provision. 8. The relationship with euthanasia. 9. Controversial issues.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제10권2호
• /
• pp.11-36
• /
• 2009

This thesis introduces the trends of korean courts' ruling on damages in medical malpractice cases for past 10 years. First of all, Korean courts' ruling have had a tendency to pay only non-economic damages for not taking the informed consent. If a doctor cannot get the informed consent from a patient, he compensate only non-economic damages for the infringement of self-determination rights of patient. It's enough for the plaintiff to prove the infringement of self-determination rights, if the plaintiff just want to get non-economic damages. The Korean Supreme court have ruled that if plaintiffs want to get economic damages for the infringement of self-determination rights or informed consent, plaintiffs must prove that the infringement of self-determination rights is the proximate cause of the economic damages of patient. There is another tendency for the Korean Supreme court to limit the damages in medical malpractice cases on the ground of patient's diseases' dangerousness or patient's idiosyncrasy. In the past courts often limit the damages only to 70~80% of total damages, but now a days courts mostly limit the damages to 20~30%. This thesis also introduce the Korean courts' trends about Valuing damages in personal injury actions awarded for gratuitously rendered nursing and medical care.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제15권2호
• /
• pp.3-29
• /
• 2014

The Supreme Court made a decision that the doctor cannot be punished for not taking a blood transfusion to the patient, depending on the patient's will to refuse the blood transfusion on June 24, 2014. The reason is that, in a special situation of conflict between the right of patients to self-determination and the duty of care, and when it was impossible to compare whether which has the superior value, if the doctor made a medical practice to respect either of those two values according to the professional sense, he cannot be punished. In principle, the doctor should make medical practices according to the patient's will. However, if the patient's life was at stake, I think, the doctor is obliged to try his best to save the life of patient. Yet to entrust the patient's life to the doctors professional sense, is to give up the obligation of the country to protect lives. In this regard, I think that the Supreme Court Decision should be reviewed, and that an ongoing research is needed.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제14권2호
• /
• pp.217-260
• /
• 2013

In connection to the civil liability of the medical malpractice, plaintiff and courts are solving the medical disputes with theory of the liability based on tort law. because contract law does not enact the right of claim of solatium and a plaintiff's lawyer and courts hesitate to use contract law. Medical treatment of doctor is main debt in medical contract and its in-complete performance gives rise to the violations of human's life, body and health. Consequently a breach of medical contract leads to violations of person-al rights. These violations spring from liability of contract as well as tort and damages from them are recognized based on medical contract law. A duty of explanation of doctor is a independent and appendant debt to the treatment debt. However its breach provokes violations of human's life, body and health as well as a right self-determination. Therefore consolation money claim should be recognized. In case of the violation of patient's life, body and health, patient's family al-so can demand consolation money due to the violation of their's own mental pain. However in case of the violation of only patient's self-determination without informed concent, they can not demand it by reason of the violation of patient's self-determination. But by reason of the violation of patient's life, body and health that were recognized by proximate causal relation between violation of duty of explanation and abd execution, they can do.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제18권2호
• /
• pp.105-138
• /
• 2017

이 글은 환자의 자기결정권에 관한 몇몇 대표적인 판례들을 연혁적으로 검토한 논문이다. 대법원은 과거 음주상태에서 농약을 음독하여 자살을 시도한 환자가 치료를 거부하자 치료를 포기한 의료진에게 특정 의학적 상태(응급상황)에서 의사의 생명보호의무가 환자의 자기결정권 존중보다 우선한다고 판단하여 의료과실을 인정하였다. 이후 대법원은 가족들의 요청에 의해 지속적 식물인간 상태인 환자에게 해당 환자의 의학적 상태(회복불가능한 사망의 단계 등)를 고려하고 환자의 의사를 추정하여 연명의료를 중단하게 하였다. 최근 대법원은 종교적 신념과 관련하여 수혈과 같은 필수적인 치료를 거부한 환자에 대하여 대법원은 환자의 생명 보호에 못지않게 환자의 자기결정권을 존중하여야 할 의무가 대등한 가치를 가지는 것으로 평가할 수 있는 판단 기준을 제시하였다. 인간의 존엄성에 근거한 환자의 자기결정권과 의사의 생명보호의무가 충돌하는 상황에 대하여 연혁적 판례 검토를 통해 법원의 입장이 우리 사회에서 환자의 주체적 역할과 자율성을 존중하는 방향을 반영하여 함께 변화되어 왔음을 확인할 수 있었다. 법원이 생명권이라는 최고의 가치만을 환자의 의사보다 더욱 우선하여 판단해오다가 적어도 명시적인 환자의 의사 또는 그렇지 못할 경우에 추정적 의사까지도 고려한 치료의 유보나 중단에 대하여 고려하기 시작한 것, 종교적 신념에 근거한 자기결정권의 행사로서의 수혈거부와 같은 치료거부에 대하여 충분한 정보에 근거한 치료거부의 몇 가지 적법한 요건들을 인정하기 시작했다는 것은 이후 우리나라 의료 환경에 적잖은 영향을 줄 것이고 의료현장에서 의료행위를 하는 의사들에게도 직 간접적인 지침이 될 것이다.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제11권1호
• /
• pp.397-445
• /
• 2010

This thesis introduces the trends of korean courts' ruling on damages in medical malpractice cases for past 10 years. First of all, Korean courts' ruling have had a tendency to pay only non-economic damages for not taking the informed consent. If a doctor cannot get the informed consent from a patient, he compensate only non-economic damages for the infringement of self-determination rights of patient. It's enough for the plaintiff to prove the infringement of self-determination rights, if the plaintiff just want to get non-economic damages. The Korean Supreme court have ruled that if plaintiffs want to get economic damages for the infringement of self-determination rights or informed consent, plaintiffs must prove that the infringement of self-determination rights is the proximate cause of the economic damages of patient. There is another tendency for the Korean Supreme court to limit the damages in medical malpractice cases on the ground of patient's diseases' dangerousness or patient's idiosyncrasy. In the past courts often limit the damages only to 70~80% of total damages, but now a days courts mostly limit the damages to 20~30%. This thesis also introduce the Korean courts' trends about Valuing damages in personal injury actions awarded for gratuitously rendered nursing and medical care.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제9권2호
• /
• pp.53-75
• /
• 2008

The end of life problem in the United States has been evolved from the development of concept of brain death over last 50 yr. The invention of ventilator and the development of emergency medicine also played a key role to elongate the end stage of life and which caused the American people to ask a question about the patients self determination and refusing the unwarranted medical treatment in the view of the death with dignity. With regard to the patient unable to self determination, surrogate decision was also considered. To guarantee the self determination, The patient self determination act also enacted on the level of Federal regulation in 1990s. But no law has effectively dealt with the situation when medical treatment became futile. Along with the significant debates on literature and court cases. The American Medical Association's Council on Medical and Judical Affairs presented formal opinion and the Texas was the first states to regulate the medical futile situation in 1999. Even though that definition was in controversy, the concept of medical futility mainly focused on the doctors' right to refuse the treatment.

• 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.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제18권2호
• /
• pp.3-46
• /
• 2017

의사의 설명의무는 의사가 환자에게 이미 시행한 의료행위, 시행 중인 의료행위 및 장래에 시행할 의료행위와 환자의 요양상 수칙에 관하여 적극적 체계적으로 진술함으로써 환자가 그 내용을 인식하게 할 법적 의무를 총칭한다. 이 의무는 환자의 알 권리에 대응하는 보고성 설명의무, 환자의 동의권 거절권에 대응하는 기여성 설명의무, 요양지도성 설명의무로 나뉜다. 설명의무를 분류하는 것은 각각의 기능과 법적 성질이 다르고, 법적 성질이 다름에 따라 그 위반 시의 효과, 특히 손해배상책임의 대상과 범위가 달라지기 때문이다. 이 주제에 관하여 우리나라에서는 지난 40년 가까운 기간 동안 많은 이론의 발전이 있었고, 그를 토대로 대법원 판결의 논리도 상당히 정치하게 전개되어 왔다. 그러나 여전히 학계와 실무계 일각에서는 용어와 개념의 혼동, 학설과 판례 논리에 대한 이해 부족을 목격하게 되고, 심지어 대법원 판결문 내의 전후 문맥에서 그리고 관련 있는 복수의 판례 사이에서 논리와 이론의 불일치를 발견하게 되는 것이 사실이다(이것은 합리적 근거와 설득력을 지닌 견해의 분립을 지적하는 것이 아니다). 위와 같은 견해와 문제의식을 기초로 해서, 의사가 부담하는 설명의무의 기능별 분류와 법적 성질 및 그 위반 시의 효과를 우리나라 학설과 판례를 중심으로 분석 정리한다.