• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.8 no.2
• /
• pp.167-193
• /
• 2007

Medical demand has been increased explosively since health insurance was introduced in 1977. Person has taken a growing interest in increase of medical service supply while that period. We must understand the legal aspects of medical quality management. There have been many legislative efforts for securing the right of patient. Patient's legal right is secured through the declaration of patient's right and all hospital person deal with patients according to the standard and criterion of the declaration of patient's right. The patient's right is set up on a basis of the right to live and the expectation right of patient. It is important to prevent medical accidents because the right of patient's health is violated by medical accident. We must manage well the medical quality to prevent the medical accident. The effort to escalate the medical quality is the best method to decrease the medical dispute. Nowadays a person take a growing interest medical quality. Our government make an effort to secure the medical quality through the legal system to be contained health organization evaluation system.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.17 no.2
• /
• pp.145-173
• /
• 2016

A patient's Right to Self-Determination or his/her Right of Autonomy in the Republic of Korea has traditionally been understood as being composed of two elements. The first, is the patient's Right to Know as it pertains to the physician's Duty to Report [the Medical Situation] to the patient; the second, is the patient's Right to Consent and Right of Refusal as it pertains to the physician's Duty to Inform [for Patient's Consent]. The legal and ethical positions pertaining to the patient's autonomous decision, particularly those in the interest of the patient's not wanting to know about his/her own body or medical condition, were therefore acknowledged as passively expressed entities borne from the patient's forfeiture of the Right to Know and Right to Consent, and exempting the physician from the Duty to Inform. The potential risk of adverse effects rising as a result of applying the Informed Consent Dogma to situations described above were only passively recognized, seen merely as a preclusion of the Informed Consent Dogma or a denial of liability on part of the physician. In short, the legal measures that guarantee a patient's 'Wish for Ignorance' are not currently being understood and acknowledged under the active positions of the patient's 'Right Not to Know' and the physician's 'Duty to Consideration' (such as the duty not to inform). Practical and theoretical issues arise absent the recognition of these active positions of the involved parties. The question of normative evaluation of cases where a sizable amount of harm has come up on the patient as a result of the physician explaining to or informing the patient of his/her medical condition despite the patient previously waiving the Right to Consent or exempting the physician from the Duty to Inform, is one that is yet to be addressed; that of ascertaining direct evidence/legal basis that can cement legality to situations where the physician foregoes the informing process under consideration that doing so may cause harm to the patient, is another. Therefore it is the position of this paper that the Right [Not to Know] and the Duty [to Consideration] play critical roles both in meeting the legal normative requirements pertaining to the enrichment of the patient's Right to Self-Determination and the prevention of adverse effects as it pertains to the provision of [unwanted] medical information.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.18 no.2
• /
• pp.3-46
• /
• 2017

Physician's Duty of Information is classified into three categories by legal function: 'Duty of Information to Report' to fulfill the patient's right to know; 'Duty of Information to Guide' patient's convalescing and staying healthy; 'Duty of Information to Contribute' to patient's self-determination. We classify the physician's duty of information because the legal effect from the breach of duty varies accordingly. The legal effect is focused on damage compensation responsibility for breach of duty. When a physician violates 'Duty of Information to Report', he subjects himself to liability of compensation for infringing on the patient's 'Right to Know'. When a physician violates 'Duty of Information to Guide', she subjects herself to liability for general medical malpractice. Finally, when a physician violates 'Duty of Information to Contribute', the physician is basically liable for violation of the patient's 'Right to Self- Determination' which refers to infringement on freedom of choice. However, in the case of situation that patient's refusal to the medical treatment would be presumed, the physician bears all liability for the patient's damage which includes both of property and mental damage.

• Tuberculosis and Respiratory Diseases
• /
• v.58 no.3
• /
• pp.213-229
• /
• 2005

The first and the longest criminal indictment case of Korean medico-legal battle, so called BORAMAE Hospital Incident, was finally on its end by Korean Supreme Court's decision on June 24, 2004, after 7 years long legal dispute via Seoul District Court and Seoul Superior Appeal Court's decision. Boramae Hospital case was the first Korean legal case of Withdrawing Life-sustaining treatment of mechanical respirator on 58 years old Extradural Hematoma victim who was on Respirator under Coma after multi-organ failure postoperatively(APACHE II score: 34-39). Two physicians who have involved patient's care and had helped to make discharge the Near-death patient to home after repeated demand of patient's wife, due to economic reason, were sentenced as homicidal crime. This review article will discuss the following items with the review of US cases, Quinlan(1976), Nancy Cruzan(1990), Barber (1983), Helen Wanglie(1990), Baby K (1994) and Baby L cases, along with Official Statement of ATS and other Academic dignitaries of US and World.: [1] Details of Boramae Hospital incident, medical facts description and legal language of homicidal crime sentence. [2] The medical dispute about the legal misinterpretation of patient's clinical status, regarding the severity of the victim with multi-organs failure on Respirator under coma with least chance of recovery, less than 10% probability. [3] Case study of US, of similar situation. [4] Introduction of ATS official Statement on Withdrawing/ Withholding Life sustaining treatment. [5] Patient Autonomy as basic principle. [6] The procedural formality in Medical practise for keeping the legitimacy. [7] The definition of Medical Futility and its dispute. [8] Dying in Dignity and PAS(Physician Assisted Suicide)/and/or Euthanasia [9] The Korean version of "Dying in Dignity", based on the Supreme Court's decision of Boramae Hospital incident (2004.6.24.) [10] Summary and Author's Note for future prospects.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.9 no.1
• /
• pp.461-503
• /
• 2008

The right to live is the most valuable benefit and protection of the law. And Medical science is the study considering value of life as the top priority. As modern medical science has progressed and expanding lifespan skills have developed, the number of symptom, called a human vegetable, has been also increased. As a result, people concerns whether euthanasia should be permitted. (1) Active euthanasia is prohibited and a doctor who conduct it is punished. (2) Indirect euthanasia can be permitted unless it is against a patient's intention. (3) Permission of passive euthanasia depends on intention of a patient. In other words, when a patient accepts, a doctor respects the right of self determination of patient and irreversible situation such as brain death happens, treatment stop is permitted. Even a patient who is in the last stage of cancer has a right to die in the dignity and elegance. Solutions for ceasing medical treatment are as follows; First, establishment of 'Bioethics Committee'. Second, setting procedures to empower a court a right to decide whether medical treatment is ceased. Third, setting procedure a government to assist treatment fees. In this paper, direction for social agreement of legal policy regarding the ceasing treatment is provided.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.18 no.2
• /
• pp.105-138
• /
• 2017

This is case comments of several representative legal cases regarding self- determination right of patient. In a case in which an intoxicated patient attempted suicide refusing treatment, the Supreme Court ruled that the medical team's respect for the patient's decision was an act of malpractice, and that in particular medical situations (medical emergencies) the physician's duty to preserve life supersedes the patient's rights to autonomy. Afterwards, at the request of the patient's family, and considering the patient's condition (irrecoverable death stage, etc.) consistent with a persistent vegetative state, the Supreme Court deduced the patient's intention and decide to withdraw life-sustaining treatment. More recently, regarding patients who refuse blood transfusions or other necessary treatment due to religious beliefs, the Supreme Court established a standard of judgment that can be seen as conferring equal value to the physician's duty to respect patient autonomy and to preserve life. An empirical study of legal precedent with regard to cases in which the physician's duty to preserve life conflicts with the patient's autonomy, grounded in respect for human dignity, can reveal how the Court's perspective has reflected the role of the patient as a decision-making subject and ways of respecting autonomy in Korean society, and how the Court's stance has changed alongside changing societal beliefs. The Court has shifted from judging the right to life as the foremost value and prioritizing this over the patient's autonomy, to beginning to at least consider the patient's formally stated or deducible wishes when withholding or withdrawing treatment, and to considering exercises of self determination right based on religious belief or certain other justifications with informed refusal. This will have a substantial impact on medical community going forward, and provide implicit and explicit guidance for physicians who are practicing medicine within this environment.

• Health Policy and Management
• /
• v.22 no.3
• /
• pp.315-346
• /
• 2012

The legal relationship between patient and physician is legally equal relationship. But, in times past, patients be compelled to sign an unequal contract, substantially. Because of the imbalance between supply and demand in the health care market. Today, the law of supply and demand in the health care market is running well. And as the cognition of citizens' rights grows, the relationship between patient and physician can also get a lot of changes. Patients have the right to know the information about medical care, and to decide whether or not to get treatment including invasions against their own bodies. In other words, Doctors have an obligation to explain to their patients. If doctors did not provide patients sufficient explanation or information, it violates the right of patients. This is a tort, or a breach of contract. To improve the remedy for violation of patient's right, patient is able to be protected by status as consumer. If patient is a kind of consumer in terms of medical consumption, he/she as consumer can enjoy supplementally the consumer's right. The patient as a consumer can exercise now a consumer's right as a constitutional right. In addition, with respect to consumer's rights, Framework Act on Consumers was enacted. This Act is based on constitutional provisions of Article 124 and the Act can be seen as a law that embodies consumer right because the provision of the constitutional law delegates specific contents. In the health care field, patients need to win recognition the statue of the consumer to hold the sovereignty of the consumer. In particular, if patients are consumers, they may be able to make good use of the quickly and efficiently collective dispute resolution and association lawsuit to rescue their damage, the Alternative Dispute Resolution(ADR) of Framework Act on Consumers.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.8 no.2
• /
• pp.69-118
• /
• 2007

In providing general medical treatments, the medical service contract between the patient and the doctor is the mutually responsible onerous contract. However, the nature of the mutually assumed contract standings of the patient and the doctor has been changing since the implementation of the national health insurance program. For instance, besides the cases of beyond excessive medical charges and medical negligence, if the doctor charged for his/her medical treatments violating the post-treatment/nursing cover criteria, the overpaid medical charge, regardless of being collected with the patient's consent, has to be refunded back to the patient. Medically needed aspects, treatment results, and unfair benefits favoring the patient are not at all taken into consideration in the health insurance scheme. This makes it easier for patients to get refunds for their share of the medical payments by involving the Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service or the National Health Insurance Corporation, without engaging in civil law suits (for reimbursement claim) against doctors. In other words, the doctor's responsibility to provide medical treatments and the patient's responsibility to pay for the medical treatment provided within the contractual realm are being demolished by the administrational arbitration of the National Health Insurance system. The basic rights of medical service providers, and the patient's right to choose are as important constitutional rights, as the National Health Insurance program, which is essential in the social welfare system. Furthermore, the development of the medical fields should not be prevented by the National Health Insurance system. If the medical treatment services can be divided into necessary treatments, general treatments, and high quality treatments, the National Health Insurance is supposed to guarantee the necessary and general treatments to provide medical treatments equally to all the insured with limited financial resources. However, for the high quality treatments, it is recommended that they should not be interfered by the National Health Insurance system, and that they should be left to the private contract between the patient and the doctor.

• 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.

• Korea Journal of Hospital Management
• /
• v.8 no.2
• /
• pp.111-129
• /
• 2003

This study discusses the direction of legislation to strengthen the legal protection of medical records privacy in information age. The legislation trends on privacy protection of medical records in European Union and United States are analysed and the current law and regulation of Korea on medical records are compared. The issues discussed include the ownership of medical records, the patient's right of access to medical records, medical information publication for other than treatment or insurance processing use, confidentiality responsibility of provider organizations, medical information management in provider organizations, penalty for the unlawful use of patient information. This study concludes that the patients' right on medical record and provider organization's responsibility in processing patient information should be strengthened in order to protect patients' privacy and to conform to the international standard on medical record protection in the information age.