• 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.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.10 no.1
• /
• pp.117-168
• /
• 2009

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.

• Journal of the Korea Society of Computer and Information
• /
• v.17 no.3
• /
• pp.167-174
• /
• 2012

This study focused on the people harmed by violent offenders, especially by rubberies. Trends capture changes in victimization rates overtime, while patterns indicate connections between the attributes of victims and the frequency with which they are targeted. Data from the UCR and the NCVS indicate that many types of victimization are taking place less frequently since their peak years in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Cumulative risks indicate the odds of being victimized over the course of a lifetime. Differential risks underscore which categories of people are victimized more often than others.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.16 no.2
• /
• pp.27-53
• /
• 2015

Recently, a plastic surgery hospital in Seoul, has been raided following suspicions that ghost surgery was performed by an unauthorized substitute surgeon on a chinese woman who lapsed into a death. Following the incident, an organization to eradicate ghost surgery was created in March by Consumers Korea, founded to protect consumer rights, and the Korea Alliance of Patients Organization. The organization has received reports of illegal medical practices. To substitute another physician without the patient's consent and without his knowledge of the substitution is fraud and deceit and a violation of a basic ethical concept. The patient as a human being is entitled to choose his own physician and he should be permitted to acquiesce in or refuse to accept the substitution. It should be noted that it is the operating surgeon to whom the patient grants his consent to perform the operation. The patient is entitled to the services of the particular surgeon with whom he contracts. The surgeon, in accepting the patient, obligates himself to utilize his personal talents in the performance of the operation to the extent required by the agreement creating the physician-patient relationship. He cannot properly delegate to another the duties which the patient authorizes him to perform personally. 'Ghost surgery' comes under Article 257(Inflicting Bodily Injury on Other or on Lineal Ascendant) of the Criminal Code. Substitution another physician without the patient's consent and without his knowledge of the substitution shall be performed Inflicting Bodily Injury. This is a controversial issue that'ghost surgery' comes under Article 347(Fraud) of the Criminal Code. It maybe controversial that operation substituted by another physician without the patient's consent and without his knowledge of the substitution becomes the component of Fraud. Also, Ghost surgery' comes under Article 27 (Prohibition of Unlicensed Medical Practice, etc.), Article 22 (Medical Records, etc.), Article 33 (Establishment) of the Medical Service Act. The surgeon's obligation to the patient requires him to perform the surgical operation: (1) within the scope of authority granted him by the consent to the operation; (2) in accordance with the terms of the contractual relationship; (3) with complete disclosure of all facts relevant to the need and the performance of the operation; and (4) to utilize his best skill in performing the operation.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.17 no.2
• /
• pp.3-28
• /
• 2016

While product liability has been settled as a technical term in civil law, criminal law does not commonly accept technical term for it. Not like civil law, product liability in criminal law point outs individual responsibility and disability of normative order. Meaning that causation between individual's action of violation of duty and the result of danger of legal interest or infringement of legal interest must be proved. In criminal law excluding "non-result-constituted crimes (Unternehmensdelikt)", charge of injuring, accidental infliction of injury, homicide or involuntary manslaughter is problematic in product liability. Of course, it is necessary to distinguish whether the action related to the outcome is act or ommission. Also the causal relationship between the action and the result must be proved, and the intention or negligence should be recognized. In this paper, it analyzes cases that were problematic in Korea, Germany, Spain, etc. Mainly focusing on the problems revealed in the determination of causal relationship, especially recognizing criminal liability related to products. Furthermore it is followed by the view of reviewing the cause-and-effect relationship by 2 steps, dividing natural scientific causation and the normative causal relationship. In this process, to acknowledge criminal product liability in accordance with recognizing cause-and-effect relationship, there should be general risk of specific substance causing the outcome. This only premise can be meaningful to examine the casual relationship from specific cases. As it shows in some cases and theories, it is not contradicting general law of cause and effect by determining specific causal relationship by free evaluation of evidence if a general causal relationship does not exist. Also since judge's testimony does not hold a dominant position from rule of thumb, it is possible to recognize specific causal relationship. However this paper takes position that if there is no objective and reasonably undeniable cause and effect law. If there is no objective and reasonably undeniable causal law, which is the premise for recognizing concrete causal relations, judge should sentence guilty according to "in dubio pro reo" principle. In addition, it is not allowed for the defendant to burden unproven fact by free evaluation of evidence which has an effect of shift of burden of proof.