• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.24 no.1
• /
• pp.101-130
• /
• 2023

Korea has very easy access to tertiary hospitals, including university hospitals, among OECD countries, and patients can reach the emergency room of a university hospital within 1-2 hours. However, there are many so-called 'essential medical' blind spots where people die because they do not receive surgery in time. In particular, in the case of essential medical care in the surgical field, despite basic surgery, there is a shortage of medical staff to perform outpatient surgery in emergency situations at university hospitals. Although this lack of manpower has a problem with low insurance premiums for surgery, it also has a very large impact on the burden of criminal liability for medical malpractice, which increases the incidence in case of emergencies. Here, we propose crime immunity to solve the manpower shortage of converged smart surgical essential medical (SES) hospitals. Currently, the medical community agrees on the need for crime immunity, but it is an ambiguous scope of immunity that has not reached a national consensus. We would like to present clear standards for essential medical practices (surgery) that require criminal immunity.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.16 no.2
• /
• pp.3-26
• /
• 2015

Recently, Practicing of ghost surgery and duty of informed consent of doctors have become a big issue in the medical dispute and lawsuits. The ground of admitting the informed consent and the agreement(self-determination of patients) can be based on the dignity of man and the right to pursue his happiness guaranteed under Article 10 of the constitution in theory. However there are no explicit legal regulations on the duty of the informed consent and there is no substantive legal enactment on the informed consent, but there is a collision between self-determination of patients and the discretionary power of doctors. If the discretionary power on the duty of the informed consent was extended it may result in the infringement of the right of surgical patients, so called arbitrary medical treatment. Relating to this issue, New Jersey Supreme Court held that a patient has the right to determine not only whether surgery is to be performed on him, but also who shall perform it. Moreover it held that a surgeon who operates without the patient's consent engages in the unauthorized touching of another and, thus, commits a battery'. But there are no ghost surgery cases adopting battery theory in Korea, and professional negligence has been considered rather than the battery, regarding an absence of hostile intent to injure patient. Supreme Court of Korea held that a doctor who operates a medical procedure without the patient's valid prior consent based on wrong diagnosis commits professional negligence resulting in injury, and the patient's invalid consent do not preclude wrongfulness'. However, if a health care provider conducts a completely non-consensual treatment or substitute surgeon without consent, the action should be plead in battery, not negligence, but if a health care provider violate his duty of care in obtaining the consent of the patient by failing to disclosure all relevant information (risks) that a reasonable person would deem significant in making a decision to have the procedure, the action should be plead in negligence, not battery. Therefore, the scope of patients' self-determination can be protected by stating clearly the scope of the duty of the informed consent and the exemption of the informed consent legislatively, it is considered that it is valid to legislate the limitation of the discretionary power.