• 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 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.

• 한국노년학
• /
• v.41 no.2
• /
• pp.197-215
• /
• 2021

This study aims to evaluate Person Centered Care practice and characteristics of care services in Korean long-term care facilities using Dementia Care Mapping as a tool. DCM, systematic observational evaluation tool for measuring dementia patients' QOL, was transformed into self-report rating scale. The process of transforming DCM into a scale of 34 items involves operationalization of DCM concepts and it's adaptation into Korean long-term care practices. Review by research team of Bradford university was added to maintain DCM concept and meaning in this scale. The scale with Cronbach alpha of .88 was surveyed on 343 care workers. Survey result shows PCC value practiced by them is 3.77(of 5 likert scale) and values on each categories of PCC reveal the characteristics of care in Korean facilities; attachment(4.02), comfort(3.95), inclusion(3.89), identity(3.67) and occupation(3.41). Dementia care in Korean facilities focuses on recipients'safety, comfort but lacks individualistic care and the meaningful and fulfilling occupation for patients. Looking at the organizational and individual factors influencing DCM values, the small facilities showed higher PCC values and there are no significant difference in PCC values between public and private facilities. Managers and care workers with career of 1~2 years showed higher PCC values compared to other career ranks and lengthes. This study suggests care practice should be centered on personhood of patients in long-term care facilities, for which introduction of unit care and education of PCC for service providers including support personnel are needed. DCM and Korean DCM scale developed in this study are suggested for the PCC-based assessment on care quality.