"Bioethics" may have various meanings depending on its roles. It may mean professional ethics for scientists and physicians, etc. It may also mean an academic discipline using interdisciplinary approach as well as a philosophical or a legal approach. "Bioethics" as an interdisciplinary study should often deal with public policy on bioethical issues. I call this role bioethics as a study of bioethics policy, which has to be developed as a new discipline. From this perspective, I deal with bioethical issues relevant to a human life before birth. There are various and often conflicting arguments about the moral status of a human life before birth such as the fertilization argument, the argument of genetic identity, so-called the "14 days" argument focusing on the formation of primitive streak, the argument of sentient being, and Michael Sandle's argument of an embryo as a being between a thing and a person. I argue that each of them is reasonable. Thus we are faced with reasonable disagreement on the views over whether a human life before birth has the same right to life as that of a person or whether right to life may be considered to be a matter of degree. If we acknowledge reasonable disagreement, as John Rawls pointed out, we should tolerate the views from ours in a plural society. Therefore, we cannot help making a policy that allows abortion and embryonic research with some limitations. When we say a certain act is morally permissible, "moral permissibility" does not mean that the act is morally right for all. Rather it means that the act cannot help being morally allowed for some persons although the others do not believe its moral rightness because they cannot right now rationally persuade others to accept their view.

The development of the biomedical science and technology has extended an argument about a status in constitutional law of unborn human life and a protection of the potential human life to that of an embryo and a gamete beyond a fetus. This argument has been focused on whether we should provide unborn or potential human life with human dignity and the right to life that are guaranteed by the constitutional law altogether or separately. If the right to life is given to unborn or potential human life, on what grounds can we restrict this right. Those who argue for the unity of the right to life with human dignity and the inseparability of those two claims that the right to life in itself should be guaranteed absolutely. According to the constitutional law, however, any constitutional right of the human person within the protection of essential part of the right can be compared with each other and restricted with some valid reasons from the legal perspective. This measure is unavoidable in reality because one right can come into conflict with another right frequently. Since fetus and embryo are in a process of developing into the human person, it is difficult to think that they are the same with the human person. For that reason, it is hard to consider that the right to life of fetus or embryo is the same with that of the human person. However, since a fetus has a special status as a potential human person, and an embryo also has a special value as a potential fetus upon an implantation, the right to life of fetus or embryo should be judged differently according to the stage of their development. A study on a constitutional status and protection of a fetus and an embryo is essential because unborn or potential human life is the origin of human person. Therefore, we have to make much account of their right to life and seek the legal respect for their inherent value.

Owing to the development of Biotechnology, the involvement of humans in life before birth has been increasing. This means the need for the protection of unborn life takes on new importance. The respect for life and human beings which is based on fundamental constitutional principle should still be respected under civil law. This study examines how methods of respect for life are embodied in civil liability law. In particular, it enunciates the protection of unborn life within time-flow. Lastly, it studies the instruments of the civil liability law and the extent of protection for a fetus from the process of fertilization of an ovum by a sperm, development into an embryo and implantation. Especially, it looks into when and how the subject of the right changes. Besides, it critically scrutinizes the opinions of leading case lawyers and the Constitutional Court which conclude that, in order for a fetus to become the subject of Damage law, it is required to be born alive to comply with precedent. Furthermore, it suggests an alternative interpretation theory.

Generally, criminal law protect the human life after he/she has born. Before the birth, the life of fetus are protected by prohibition of abortion, not of murder. Also, the fetus is not considered as an object of infliction of injury. A popular opinion and case law say that the fetus becomes a person at the point of an outset labor pains. Recently, some theories allege that traditional opinions is not sufficient in the case of induced delivery, so it should be decided by norm, not by a simple fact, whether a unborn child is a fetus or a person, and that the fetus should be considered as an object of infliction of injury. These theories can be meaningful because these could protect human life more comprehensively. In the other side, however, these could harm the legal stability and bring the excessive punishment. Abortion of negligence is not punishable in criminal law, and there is little possibility of the fetus injury without the injury of the pregnant woman. And the Contergan Case, if it happened again, must be dealt with as crime about environment or public health more severely. These new approaches are in conflict with the principle of "nulla poena sine lege" and other fundamental rules of the criminal law, and should lead to the excessive punishment and criminal provisions. Accordingly, the decision of Supreme Court of Korea about the beginning point of human being should be maintained.

Because Korea has the excellent informational technology, it was expected to be able to improve the accessibility to healthcare and compete with other nations in excellence through u-Healthcare. But we can't complete the excellent u-Healthcare because of the law to be able to use only the tele-counselling between doctor to doctor or doctor to nurse. First of all, we must complete the law to be able to use the improved u-Health containing of telemedicine between doctor to patient. Though other factors, the procurement of safe IT, the credibility to healthcare service provider containing of nutritionist and occupational therapist etc. are prepared for erecting u-Healthcare, we can get the final and decisive u-Health policy only by means of Law for supporting u-Healthcare's Activation. The important sections of Law for supporting u-Healthcare's Activation are as follows. Sec. 4 The Minister for Health, Welfare and Family Affairs and the dean of associated administrative division have to erect the combined plan for u-Healthcare's Activation. Sec. 11 Government and local autonomous entity can support the facility and equipment to be necessitated for using u-Healthcare to improve the medical accessibility of person in the region with poor medicine. Sec. 13 Doctor can support other doctor's medical action through IT and if there are not medical risk, doctor can give medical act directly to the special patients. Sec. 21 If pharmaceuticals is necessitated in u-Healthcare, remote doctor has to send the patient the electronic prescription and the pharmaceutist to receive the electronic prescription has to delivery the pharmaceuticals in accordance with patient's demand.

While the medical supplies have positive functions such as extending lifespan, recovering health, and preventing diseases, they also cause unexpected tragic consequences due to their side effects, and the magnitude of such damage inevitably increases due to the mechanism of mass production, mass distribution, and mass consumption of those medical supplies. Therefore, needless to say, the optimal way to prevent or reduce such damage is rather through medical supply manufacturers' producing non-defective products, or through the government's controlling production and sales of medical supplies with more aggressive exercise of regulatory authority on medical supply manufacturers, than through a remedy by a legal relief after using medical supplies. In this case, although the victim died due to the defect of the cold medicine, 'CONTAC 600', the drug company's responsibility to cover damages was not recognized because a defect could not be found in the then-manufacturing process. Thus, while pharmaceutical companies are gaining economic profits by producing and selling a medical supplies, if they do not take any remedy measures for the victims of their products' side effects, the victims have to use medical supplies under their own responsibility of taking a risk, and they have to accept the full damage of the potential consequence. Therefore, to remove such absurdity and contradiction, and to practically remedy the victim of medical supplies' side effects, the pharmaceutical side effects remedy project pending in the the Drugs, Cosmetics and Medical Instruments Lawneeds to be actively implemented.

Is it lawful to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment applied to a patient in a terminal condition or permanent unconscious condition? In Korea, there are no such laws or regulations which control affairs related to the withholding or withdrawal life-support treatment and active euthanasia as the Natural Death Act or the Death with Dignity Act in the U. S. A. And in addition there has had no precedent of Supreme Court. Recently Supreme Court has pronounced a historical judgment on a terminal care case. The court allowed the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment from a patient in a permanent unconscious state. Fundamentally the court judged that the continuation of that medical treatment would infringe dignity and value of a patient as a human being. And the court required some legal grounds to consider such withdrawal or withholding of medical care lawful. The legal grounds are as follow. First, the patient is in a incurable and irreversible condition and already entered a stage of death. Second, the patient executed a directive, in advance, directing the withholding or withdrawal of life-support treatment in a incurable and irreversible condition or in a terminal condition. Otherwise, at least, the patient's will would be presumed through his/her character, view of value, philosophy, religious faith and career etc. I regard if a patient is in a incurable and irreversible condition or in a terminal condition, the medical contract between a patient and a doctor would be terminated because of the actual impossibility of achievement of it's purpose. So I think the discontinuation of life-sustaining care would be legally allowed without depending on the patient's own will.

More than 80% of Japanese still want to face death at home, but only 10% of them can have his/her last moments of life at home. On the other hand, the end-of-life care has been a big issue in both ethical and economic aspect because of euthanasia and healthcare costs. It is generally known that the end-of-life care spends much more than the care for nonterminal years. This study approaches the key for the end-of-life care and suggests a desirable solution.

In Korea, Abortion in the Criminal Law is an illegal act in exception of on which abortion may be carried out through the grounds are very limited and related such a emergency situation of women's physical health, rape, incest and genetic diseases. The Criminal Law regulates the mother's act of abortion and the doctor's surgical performance of abortion. The Mother and the Child Health Law prescribes the medical, ethical, and genetic grounds for the legal permission of abortion. Many people tend to abuse of abortion even though they are fully aware of its illegality. The law lead to be inconsistent with its enforcement. In this paper, I would like to suggest some proposals about the legal analysis of the Abortion Regulations th reform the existing regulation and increase th effectiveness of the regulations. Recently, in a case of the a maternity hospital where a midwife left alone a diabetes pregnancy women who had a baby, and the overweight baby(5.2Kg) died in the uterus due to hypoxic states. Supreme Court of Korea 2007.6.29. 2005do3832) had given a verdict of "not guilty". It looked like there were very fair with current crime law. But, we want this case to be investigated if there weren't any logical contradictions as well as concurrent translation within Constitution Law. Now the Mother and the Child Health Law prescribes the medical, ethical, and genetic grounds for the legal permission of abortion. But this law does not include social and economic grounds.

i) Das deutsche Arzneimittelgesetz(AMG) vom 24. 8. 1976 hat neben der Einf$\ddot{u}$hrung des Zulassungsverfahren f$\ddot{u}$r Arzneimittel anstelle des bisherigen Registrieungsverfahrens vor allem auf dem Gebiet des Haftungsrechts eine bedeutende Neuerung gebracht: die Gef$\ddot{a}$hrdungshaftung f$\ddot{u}$r den pharmazeutischen Unternehmer. Gem$\ddot{a}{\ss}$ $\S$84 AMG ist der pharmazeutische Unternehmer zum Schadensersatz verpflichtet. wenn infolge der Anwndung eines Arzneimittels ein Mensch get$\ddot{o}$tet oder K$\ddot{o}$rper oder die Gesundheit eines Menschen nicht unerheblich verletzt wird. Pharmazeutischer Unternehmer ist, wer das Arzneimittel unter seinem Namen in Verkehr bringt. ii) Die Ersatzpflicht des pharmazeutisches Unternehmers besteht jedoch nur in zwei F$\ddot{a}$llen: a) Das Arzneimittel hat bei bestimmungsgemm$\ddot{a}{\ss}$em Gebrauch sch$\ddot{a}$dliche Wirkungen, die $\ddot{u}$ber ein nach den Erkenntnissen der medizinischen Wissenschaft vertretbares Ma$\ss$ hinausgehen($\S$84 Abs. 1 Satz 2 Nr. 1 AMG). b) Der Schaden ist infolge einer nicht den Erkenntnissen der medizinischen Wissenschaft entsprechenden Kennzeichnung, Fachinformarion oder Gebrauchsinformation eingetreten($\S$84 Abs. 1 Satz 2 Nr. 2 AMG). iii) Mit dem 2. Schadensersatzrechts$\ddot{a}$nderungsgesetz ist, dem Konzept von $\S$6 Umwelthaftungsgesetz folgend, eine gesetzliche Kausalit$\ddot{a}$tsvermutung eingef$\ddot{u}$hrt worden. Ist das angewendete Arzneimittel nach den Gegebenheiten des Einzelfalls geeignet, den entstandenen Schaden zu verursachen, so soll vermutet werden, da$\ss$ das Arzneimittel auch den konkreten Schaden beim Anwender verursacht hat($\S$84 II AMG). Der pharmazeutische Unternehmer hat dann diese Vermutung zu wiederlegen. iv) Gem$\ddot{a}{\ss}$ $\S$94 AMG hat der pharmazeutische Unternehmer f$\ddot{a}$r seine Haftpflicht Deckungsvorsorge entweder durch eine Hafpflichtversicherung oder eine Freistellungs- oder Gew$\ddot{a}$hrleistungsverpflichtung eines Inl$\ddot{a}$ndischen Kreditinstituts zu treffen. v) Aber koreanisches Arzneimittelgesetz hat keine Gef$\ddot{a}$hrdungshaftung f$\ddot{u}$r Arzneimittelschaden. Es gibt nur Gefahrdungshaftung des Hersteller aufgrund des Produkthaftungsgesetzes, das auf das Arzneimittel Anwendung findet. Ich glaube, in Zukuft soll koreanisches AMG die Gef$\ddot{a}$hrdungshaftung f$\ddot{u}$r den pharmazeutischen Unternehmer regeln.

Main Issue of Supreme Court Decision 2005Da16713 Delivered on June 24, 2005 is about the duty of medical care in the interhospital transfer of patients. According to the above Supreme Court Decision, in the interhospital transfer of patients, the decision to transfer should make from the aspect of medical treatment. The hospitals and doctors keep the duty of medical care. In addition to the duty for hospitals/doctors to check the capacity and availability of the hospital to which the patient is transferred, there are also duties to inform about emergency medical service and to sufficiently explain the need for the transfer, the medical conditions of the patient to be transferred and the hospital from which the patient is transferred. The hospital to which the patient is transferred must be thoroughly informed about matters such as the patient's conditions, the treatment the patient was given and reasons for transfer. including information upon referral, completeness of medical records, patient monitoring and so on. The interhospital transfer requires the consent of doctor belonging to the hospital to which the patient is transferred after the consideration of capacity and availability of the hospital and the informed consent of patients or legal representatives.