• 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.4 no.1
• /
• pp.255-294
• /
• 2003

This paper is relating to the debates upon the physicians' duty to issue the prescription documents to their patients. The duty should be approached in light of the patients' right to know about the prescription and pharmacy. The Korean Constitution is construed to protect the citizens' right to know as a fundamental right. The Constitution article 10 reads as follows: "All citizens shall be assured of human dignity and worth and have the right to pursue happiness. It is the duty of the State to confirm and guarantee the fundamental and inviolable human rights of individuals." The rights confirmed and guarantee by this article include the patients' right to know about what happens to their body, that is the treatments taken for them and so on. One of the treatments is the prescription and pharmacy. The information is necessary for them to establish their action for the damages in case of their harm resulted in by the negligence in prescription and pharmacy. Now that the prescription is written about by a physician and then the pharmacists compound the prescribed medicines, the patients need to get the documents signed by the pharmacists about the pharmacy. It should be noted that the patients right to know is the right to know and remember. Therefore the patients, who are laymen about the pharmacy, need two prescription documents one of which should be kept by them even after they take the prescribed and compounded medicines for the potential trial.

• 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.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.69
• /
• pp.63-84
• /
• 2016

Article 77 of CISG requires an aggrieved party, the promisee, claiming damages to take reasonable measures to mitigate losses. The reasonable measures required hereunder are limited to those that can be expected under the circumstances having regard to the principle of good faith. When taking such measures, the aggrieved party must do so within a reasonable time under the circumstances. The expenses incurred in taking such measures are recoverable from the promisor. If the aggrieved party fails to do so, the damages recoverable from the promisor are reduced in the amount the loss that should have been mitigated. The aggrieved party's duty to mitigate damages applies to claim for damages only. That is, the violation of this duty should not be invoked against other remedies available under CISG, such as the right to claim specific performance, the right to claim for the price or the right of reduction of price. In practice, under the provision of article 77, the aggrieved party, the seller or the buyer, is often required to enter into a substitute transaction as a measure to mitigate losses and many cases involving a substitute transaction are internationally reported. Therefore this paper intends to provide a certain understanding of the aggrieved party's duty to take measures to mitigate losses based on such cases reported.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.17 no.1
• /
• pp.45-105
• /
• 2016

The purposes of this study is to debate the duty to share and right to be forgotten of human materials and human genome information in modern personalized medicine. This study debates the use of human materials and human genome information in modern personalized medicine from the perspectives of the duty to share and right to be forgotten. The arguments are based on personal and community aspects. In general, human genome information is considered the personal property of an individual. Nevertheless, on thinking carefully, we can understand that human materials and human genome information have both personal and community aspects. In this study, cases are examined including a HeLa cell, Guaymi woman cell strain, and Hagahai man cell, to support various debates an genetic information for database construction in personalized medicine. Finally, using moral theories, this study attempts to synthesize the dialectics of the duty to share and right to forget regarding the use of human materials and human genome information in medicine.

• 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.

• Journal of Legislation Research
• /
• no.54
• /
• pp.111-154
• /
• 2018

The protection of fundamental rights of people is a natural duty of a state. Since Constitutional Law declare that a state is obliged to protect the fundamental rights of people obviously, it is reasonable to postulate that a state has a duty to protect every person's right much more positively. Of course, it is true that whereas right of freedom is much more important in modern states, the social right becomes more important currently. Nevertheless, we have no choice but to put an emphasis on the importance of the right of freedom like modern states. Thus states are still bound to try to protect the right of people, specific duty of behavior for the sake of right of freedom belongs to states. In particular, due to the fact that lifts are essential to our comfortable life and the demage from the accident concerning with the lifts is fatal, the strategy for securing the safety of using the lifts is significant to some extent. And because it is true that the experience of UK that put an emphasis on the role of civil actors is meaningful to us, there seems implications for us. Accordingly, it is possible to consider the material components such as the check of safety before installation for the sake of safety enhancement, quality control for lifts parts, specification of check criterion and variation of check cycle etc. and personal ones such as specification of qualification of competent persons, guarantee of competent person's independence, variation of obligator's duty and variation of user's obligation etc. However, as the situation of UK is one thing and that of Korea is another, we don't have to adhere to the policy and the experience of UK strictly. Rather, we had better apply the policy and experience of UK to ours appropriately.

• Journal of Hospice and Palliative Care
• /
• v.10 no.1
• /
• pp.1-20
• /
• 2007

• The Korean Nurse
• /
• v.17 no.1 s.93
• /
• pp.20-22
• /
• 1978

• The Korean Nurse
• /
• v.17 no.1 s.93
• /
• pp.11-13
• /
• 1978