• Journal of the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons
• /
• 제37권1호
• /
• pp.9-14
• /
• 2011

Recently, the population of patients who refuse transfusion has increased for both religious and non-religious reasons, even in life threatening emergency situations. Their refusal has highlighted the need to develop nonblood transfusion surgery techniques to decrease the risk from blood transfusions. A 57-year woman with an ulcerative lesion on the gingiva of the right upper molar area visited the department of oral and maxillofacial surgery in Dankook University Dental Hospital. After a preliminary evaluation, the patient was diagnosed with squamous cell carcinoma. As she refused blood transfusion during surgery for religious reasons, surgery was planned using recombinant human erythropoietin (rHuEPO) without a blood transfusion. The patient underwent a partial maxillectomy, supraomohyoid neck dissection, free radial forearm flap and split thickness skin graft under general anesthesia. rHuEPO and iron were used before and after surgery. The hemoglobin/hematocrit (Hb/Hct) level, iron (Fe) and total iron-binding capacity (TIBC) were assessed. The patient recovered completely without any blood transfusions. rHuEPO is a viable alternative for patients with religious objections to receiving blood transfusions.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제27권2호
• /
• pp.37-57
• /
• 2017

On 9 March 2017, a Tribunal constituted under the ICSID Convention issued its ruling in the case of Ansung Housing v. People's Republic of China, dismissing with prejudice all claims made by the Claimant, Ansung Housing Co., Ltd., in its Request for Arbitration, pursuant to ICSID Arbitration Rule 41(5). Ansung Housing v. PRC has drawn attention since it is the first case where an investor with Korean nationality initiated an ICSID arbitration on the basis of the Korea-China Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT) as amended in 2007 between the Republic of Korea and the People's Republic of China. The Tribunal finds that its ruling is about a lack of jurisdiction of the ICSID and of its own competence as well as regarding manifest lack of legal merit due to a lack of temporal jurisdiction, since a Respondent's Rule 41(5) objection is concerned with the three-year limitation period in Article 9(7) of the Korea-China BIT. The Tribunal held that, under Article 9(7) of the Korea-China BIT, the limitation period begins with an investor's first knowledge of the fact that it has incurred loss or damage, not with the date on which it gains knowledge of the quantum of that loss or damage. Finally, the Tribunal held that Ansung submitted its dispute to ICSID and made its claim for purposes of Article 9(3) and (7) of the BIT after more than three years had elapsed from the date on which Ansung first acquired knowledge of loss or damage and that the claim is time-barred and, as such, is manifestly without legal merit. It remains to be seen whether the aggrieved Claimant initiates annulment proceedings before an ad hoc committee under the ICSID Convention. It is quite interesting to see whether the decisions by the Tribunal should be reversed on the basis of the Claimant's arguments as to the start date as well as the end date of the limitation period under the Korea-China BIT.