• Journal of Convergence for Information Technology
• /
• v.11 no.8
• /
• pp.14-22
• /
• 2021

As the Covid-19 outbreak spreads and prolongs around the world, visitor lists are prepared in various ways when entering the facility to prevent infection and identify confirmed people. In this study, we propose an access management system using beacons to solve the problems with the preparation and management of existing visitor lists. The research method searches the laws related to the collection of personal information and compares the current status of personal information collection and trends in the beacons. The proposed system compares and analyzes existing methods and security and efficiency, which confirm accurate and rapid access registration. By using Beacon access management system, it is effective in preventing and responding to the spread of new infectious diseases in the future.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.23 no.3
• /
• pp.3-44
• /
• 2022

As a result of a close review focusing on the case of obstruction of epidemiological investigation by a religious group A in Daegu, which was a problem when the pandemic of Covid-19 infection began in Korea around February 2, 2020, when an epidemiological investigator requested a specific group to submit a list, While there have been cases where an act of not responding or submitting an edited omission list was sentenced to the effect that the act did not fall under an epidemiological investigation, in the case of non-submission of the visitor list for the B Center, even though a 'list of visitors' was requested. Regarding the fact of refusal without a justifiable reason, 'providing a list of persons entering the building is a key factual act that forms a link between epidemiological investigations accompanying an epidemiological investigation, and refusing to do so is also an act of refusal and obstruction of an epidemiological investigation. There are cases where it is possible to demand criminal punishment. Regardless of whether the request for submission of the membership list falls under the epidemiological investigation, there are cases in which the someones' actions correspond to the refusal or obstruction of the epidemiological investigation. A lower court ruling that if an epidemiological investigation is rejected or obstructed as a result of interfering with factual acts accompanying an epidemiological investigation, comprehensively considering whether or not the list has been diverted for purposes other than epidemiological investigation, the logic is persuasive. Epidemiological investigations such as surveys and human specimen collection and testing are conducted for each infectious disease patient or contact confirmed as a result of the epidemiological investigation, but epidemiological investigations conducted on individual individuals cannot exist independently of each other, and the This is because the process of identification and tracking is essential to an epidemiological investigation, and if someone intentionally interferes with or rejects the process of confirming this link, it will result in direct, realistic, and widespread interference with the epidemiological investigation. In this article, ① there are differences between an epidemiological investigation and a request for information provision under the Infectious Disease Control and Prevention Act, but there are areas that fall under the epidemiological investigation even in the case of a request for information, ② Considering the medical characteristics of COVID-19 and the continuity of the epidemiological investigation, the epidemiological investigator the fact that the act of requesting a list may fall under the epidemiological investigation, ③ that the offense of obstructing the epidemiological investigation in certain cases may constitute 'obstruction of Performance of Official Duties by Fraudulent Means', and ④ rejecting the request for information provision under the Infectious Disease Control and Prevention Act from September 29, 2020 In this case, it is intended to be helpful in the application of the Infectious Disease control and Prevention Act and the practical operation of epidemiological investigations in the future by pointing out the fact that a new punishment regulation of imprisonment or fine is being implemented.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.23 no.4
• /
• pp.75-102
• /
• 2022

In this article, 「Act on the hospice and palliative care and decisions on life-sustaining treatment for patients at the end of life」, 「Act On The Improvement Of Mental Health And The Support For Welfare Services For Mental Patients」, 「Organs Transplant Act」, 「Safety And Management Of Human Tissue Act」, 「Pharmaceutical Affairs Act」, 「Prevention Of Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome Act」, 「Tuberculosis Prevention Act」, 「Infectious Disease Control And Prevention Act」 were reviewed. Patients' right to self-determination and consent in these laws are related to civil law. even though they are closely related to the civil law in relation to patients' right to self-determination and consent. In order to consistently operate medical administration, it is necessary to understand the principles of civil law decision-making.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.22 no.4
• /
• pp.37-55
• /
• 2021

On March 19, 2021, the Korean Bioethics Association and related academic circles published a joint statement criticizing the partial revision of Infectious Disease Control And Prevention Act. However, according to the Bioethics And Safety Act of Korea, research conducted by the state or local governments for public welfare is excluded from human subjects research project. In addition, since the Korean legal system is not based on the dichotomy between research and surveillance, the discussion of the US Common Rule cannot be directly applied to Korea. For the harmonious operation of the state's duty to manage infectious diseases and the Institutional Review Boards, institutional alternatives should be prepared in consideration of the following issues. First, the related academic community should first pay attention to the problems of the current laws in Korea. Second, it should be understood that the state is carrying out many tasks without the consent of the parties in order to fulfill its duty to manage infectious diseases. Third, when presenting institutional alternatives, it is necessary to consider the feasibility of implementation in Korea. An in-depth discussion of the institutional alternatives by the Medical Law Society and other related academic circles is necessary.

• Journal of agricultural medicine and community health
• /
• v.48 no.2
• /
• pp.132-143
• /
• 2023

Objectives: We aimed to describe the reporting patterns of 6 notifiable surveillance diseases in the Republic of Korea, including water- and foodborne infections, from 2012 to 2021. Methods: For the 12,296 cases that met the reporting criteria, we calculated the number of reported cases, including the number of cases confirmed by lab tests or suspected by a physician, the number of cases with delayed reporting and their average days of delay, and the median days required to report the confirmatory test results. Results: The overall number of reported cases consistently increased over the ten years, with a significant rise in the reported cases of typhoid fever, paratyphoid fever, and EHEC. Ninety-five percent of all reported cases were timely reported within one day of diagnosis. Vibrio vulnificus had the highest rate of delayed reporting (6.8% delayed over 1 day, 3.0% delayed over 3 days), while cholera had the lowest rate (1.9% delayed over 1 day, 0.1% delayed over 3 days). The average days of delayed reporting was 6.1 days: the highest for paratyphoid fever (10.8 days) and the lowest for cholera (2.7 days). For typhoid fever and paratyphoid fever, there has been an increase in the proportion of cases with negative test results. For vibrio vulnificus, there has been an increase in the proportion of cases with confirmed positive test results. As for EHEC, there has been a recent increase in cases with no confirmatory tests. Conclusions: Reported cases of water- and foodborne infectious diseases increased, indicating improved surveillance system completeness. However, for paratyphoid fever, improvements are needed in terms of timely notification by healthcare facilities and timely reporting of confirmatory test results.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.21 no.2
• /
• pp.105-162
• /
• 2020

In the pandemic of infectious disease, restrictions of individual liberty have been justified in the name of public health and public interest. In March 2020, the National Assembly of the Republic of Korea passed the revised bill of the 「Infectious Disease Control and Prevention Act.」 The revised bill newly established the legal basis for forced testing and disclosure of the information of confirmed cases, and also raised the penalties for violation of self-isolation and treatment refusal. This paper examines whether and how these individual liberty limiting clauses be justified, and if so on what ethical and philosophical grounds. The authors propose the theories of the philosophy of law related to the justifiability of liberty-limiting measures by the state and conceptualized the dual-aspect of applying the liberty-limiting principle to the infected patient. In COVID-19 pandemic crisis, the infected person became the 'Patient as Victim and Vector (PVV)' that posits itself on the overlapping area of 'harm to self' and 'harm to others.' In order to apply the liberty-limiting principle proposed by Joel Feinberg to a pandemic with uncertainties, it is necessary to extend the harm principle from 'harm' to 'risk'. Under the crisis with many uncertainties like COVID-19 pandemic, this shift from 'harm' to 'risk' justifies the state's preemptive limitation on individual liberty based on the precautionary principle. This, at the same time, raises concerns of overcriminalization, i.e., too much limitation of individual liberty without sufficient grounds. In this article, we aim to propose principles regarding how to balance between the precautionary principle for preemptive restrictions of liberty and the concerns of overcriminalization. Public health crisis such as the COVID-19 pandemic requires a population approach where the 'population' rather than an 'individual' works as a unit of analysis. We propose the second expansion of the harm principle to be applied to 'population' in order to deal with the public interest and public health. The new concept 'risk to population,' derived from the two arguments stated above, should be introduced to explain the public health crisis like COVID-19 pandemic. We theorize 'the extended harm principle' to include the 'risk to population' as a third liberty-limiting principle following 'harm to others' and 'harm to self.' Lastly, we examine whether the restriction of liberty of the revised 「Infectious Disease Control and Prevention Act」 can be justified under the extended harm principle. First, we conclude that forced isolation of the infected patient could be justified in a pandemic situation by satisfying the 'risk to the population.' Secondly, the forced examination of COVID-19 does not violate the extended harm principle either, based on the high infectivity of asymptomatic infected people to others. Thirdly, however, the provision of forced treatment can not be justified, not only under the traditional harm principle but also under the extended harm principle. Therefore it is necessary to include additional clauses in the provision in order to justify the punishment of treatment refusal even in a pandemic.