• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.7 no.2
• /
• pp.271-310
• /
• 2006

In the situation of bringing out of social problem about the medical accident and medical dispute, from 1988 the enactment activity for a legislative bill on conciliation of dispute has promoted, a legislative bill on prevention and relief of medical accident was again proposed in December, 2005. This bill has been faced rough going in review process of National Assembly. Because the purpose of this legislative bill is the conciliation of interest of between medical service consumer and medical service supplier, an item of issues of law is no-fault compensation scheme. However, as no-fault compensation scheme runs counter to the principle liability with fault in our civil law, as expected, whether the inducement is valid or, if induced, the problem is not must be totally reviewed. First of all, the general of principle liability without fault and especially the medical system in foreign countries are reviewed, by reviewing an issue and the pros and cons of the inducement of no-fault compensation scheme, this article draws the conclusion. After all, considering that the necessity adapting Gefahrdungschftung in medical accident as much as other industrial fields exists, the many provisions of the principle liability without fault exists in civil law and special law of our law system, and no-fault compensation scheme let legislative purpose be, to what extent, achieved by conciliating patient and doctor, the inducement of principle liability without fault in medical field is reasonable in the aspect of politic and legal system.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.11 no.1
• /
• pp.11-52
• /
• 2010

Medical Dispute Arbitration Law had been debated on its legislation several times since Korean Medical Association's submission of the bill to the National Assembly in 1988, eventually in December, 2009, passed the National Assembly Standing Committee and was laid before the Legislation and Judiciary Committee, and thus its legislation is now near at hand. During the long process, it has provided a hot issue with our society. And yet, Medical Dispute Arbitration Law has differed considerably in legislative content depending on the main body of proceeding the enactment, which subsequently was given the mixed comments of 'Act on Malpractice-related Damage Relief' or 'Medical Indemnity Act', and this legislative bill also cannot be free from this debate. It is desirable that medical disputes between doctors and patients be resolved through conciliation between the parties concerned. But, because reaching a compromise is difficult owing to deep emotional conflicts between the parties, difficulties in investigating a cause and requiring a high amount of settlement money, etc., it is inevitable to seek a resolution by third party intervention. By the way, such an arbitration by third party is based on the compromise of the interested parties and thus has a limitation of not being able to satisfy both parties completely. Therefore, the legislative bill made for arbitration of medical disputes between the parties will have to prepare an institutional system for the parties to easily understand and accept. Also, problems occurred in the legislative bill will have to be corrected through an in-depth discussion in order for the legislative bill to work as an effective system.