• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.19 no.2
• /
• pp.41-72
• /
• 2018

In the division of labor (or teamwork) in medicine, the responsibility of medical and nursing staff should be separated or distributed to justify negligent criminal offenses. The present work refers to the standards by which the due diligence and responsibility of the individual persons are to be determined and delimited. In this context, it has been proven that objective theory as a measure of due diligence is appropriate. From a moral point of view, when assessing due diligence, it makes sense to impose greater individual or higher performance demands on the perpetrator, but law and order require that due diligence should result from socially relevant human behavior. To give objective measure of negligence and to provide the highest level of personal responsibility, so that man can not be burdened too much responsibility and it is accordingly with an equality theorem. Afterwards some points are presented, which should be considered in a concrete fact in the determination of the medical negligence. Medical action has specific characteristics such as professionalism, discretionary and exclusive, unbalance of information. These characteristics distinguish medical actions from general negligence. The general level of knowledge, the urgency, working condition and working environment of the medical facility, duration of the professional practice, assessment of the medical activity are crucial in this context. As a standard of delineation of due diligence, I have used the permitted risk and the principle of trust. In the horizontal division of labor, the principle of trust applies. The principle of trust applies in principle in cases of division of labor interaction, when doctors in the same hospital exercise their own specific occupational field or everyone works in another hospital. However, this is not true for every case. In the vertical division of labor, the principle of trust does not apply and the senior physician can not trust the assistant doctors. In this case, the principle of trust is converted into a duty of supervision for assistant doctors by the senior physician. This supervision requirement could be used as a random check.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.5 no.1
• /
• pp.208-255
• /
• 2004

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.21 no.2
• /
• pp.37-73
• /
• 2020

Medical practice with medical adaptability is not illegal. Consent to medical practice is also not intended to exclude causes of Illegality. The patient's consent to medical practice is the exercise of the right to self-determination, and the patient's right to self-determination is take shape through the doctor's information. If a doctor violates his duty to inform, failure to inform or lack of inform constitutes an act of illegality of omission in itself. As a result, the legal interest of self-determination is violated. The patient has the right to know and make decisions on his or her own, even when it is not connected to the benefit of life and body as the subject of the body. If that infringed and lost, the non-property damage shall be recognized and the immaterial damage must be compensated. On the other hand, the violation of the duty of information does not belong to deny the compensation for physical damage. Which the legal interest violated by violation of the obligation to inform is the self-determination, and loss of opportunity of choice is recognized as ordinary damage. However, if the opportunity of choice was lost because of the infringement of the right to self-determination and the patient could not choice the better way, that dose not occur plainly bad results, under the prove of these causal relationship, that bad results could be compensated. But the unexpectable damage could not be compensated, because the physical damage is considered as the special damage due to the violation of the right of the self-determination.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.21 no.2
• /
• pp.163-207
• /
• 2020

Korea has been positioned as the leading country in the industry of clinical trials as the clinical trail of Korea has developed for the recent 10 years. Clinical trial has plays a significant role in the development of medicine and the increase of curability. However, it has inevitable risk as the purpose of the clinical trial is to prove the safety and effectiveness of new drugs. Therefore, the clinical trial should be controlled properly to protect the health of the subjects of clinical trial and to ensure that they exercise a right of self-determination. In this context, the fiduciary duties of doctors who conduct clinical trials is especially important. The Pharmaceutical Affairs Act and the relevant regulations define several duties of doctors who conduct clinical trials. In particular, the duty to protection of subjects and the duty to provide information constitute the main fiduciary duties to the subjects. Those are essentially similar to the fiduciary duties of doctors in usual treatment from the perspective of the values promoted by the law and the content of the law. Nonetheless, clinical trials put more emphasis on the duties to provide explanation than in usual treatment. Further research and study are required to establish the concrete standard for the duty of care. However, if the blind pursuit of higher standards for the duty of care or to pass the burden of proof to doctors may result in disrupting the development of clinical trials, limiting the accessibility of patients to new treatment and even violating the principle of sharing damage equally and properly. In addition to these duties, the laws of clinical trials define several duties of doctors. Any decision on whether the violation of the law constitutes the violation of the fiduciary duty and justifies the demand for compensation of damages should be based on whether relevant law aims to protect the safety and benefit of subjects, even if in an incidental way, the degree to which such violation breaches the values promoted by the law and the concrete of violation of benefit of law, the detailed acts of such violation. The legal interests of the subjects can be protected effectively by guaranteeing compliance with those duties and establishing judicial and administrative controls to ensure that the benefit of subjects are protected properly in individual cases.

• Product Safety
• /
• s.260
• /
• pp.14-17
• /
• 2015

국민의 안전 보호와 제품사고 예방을 위해 제품안전기본법이 올 1월 개정되었다. 무엇보다 기업은 사업자의 '제품사고 보고의무'에 대해 주의해야 한다. 제품으로 인하여 중대한 사고가 발생한 사실을 알게 된 경우에 사업자는 해당 사고내용을 중앙행정기관에 무조건 보고해야 하기 때문이다. 이를 위반하면 3,000만 원 이하의 과태료가 부과된다. 병을 알릴수록 명약이 나온다고 했다.

• 월간 기계설비
• /
• no.5 s.190
• /
• pp.86-91
• /
• 2006

현장 환경관리조직 설치 의무화/전문건설업계 유동성 개선/건설현장에 부실벌점 주의보/하도급 위반 중복처벌 못한다/공사 견적능력을 높여라/해외플랜트 수주 1분기 63억달러/초중고 74교 14건으로 번들링/조달청,공사계약팀 시설총괄팀으로 개명

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.17 no.2
• /
• pp.29-56
• /
• 2016

$F{\ddot{u}}r$ den Schadensersatzhaftung des Arztes, sog. die Arzthaftung, ist es vornehmlich vorauszusetzen: die $Sch{\ddot{a}}digungsbehandlung$ des Arztes, die Rechtswidrigkeit und das Verschulden. Zur Problematik der $Fahrl{\ddot{a}}ssigkeit$ in der Stufe des Verschuldens handelt sich es in dieser Beitrag um die Kritisierung der Rechtsprechung. $F{\ddot{u}}r$ die Entscheidung des Verschulden im medizinischen Fehler kommt es darauf an, ob die Sorgfaltspflicht des Arztes verletzt wird. $Daf{\ddot{u}}r$ wird der medizinische Standard rekurriert, den die Rechtsprechung nicht aus materieller, sondern aus normativer Sicht begreift. Erstaunlich $un{\ddot{u}}bereinstimmend$ mit deren Leitsatz wird der medizinische Standard als $Ma{\ss}stab$ der Sorgfaltspflicht materiell - zutreffend nur im Ergebnis - behandelt. Die Sorgfaltspflicht in der Medizin bedeutet nicht die natur-wissenschaftliche Erkenntnisse, sondern eine "Best-$M{\ddot{u}}ssen$" Pflicht. Demnach ist der Standpunkt der Rechtsprechung, wonach den med. Standard normativ bewertet und die Sorgfaltspflicht darduch wieder normativ entscheidet, nicht anders als eine $w{\ddot{o}}rtliche$ Wiederholung. Die Arzthaftung in der Rechtsprechung ist aufgrund mit der Verneinung von der Sorgfaltspflichtverletzung nicht angenommen, welche in der Tat jedoch aus verschiedenen $Gr{\ddot{u}}nden$, wie die Rechtswidrigkeit, die $Fahrl{\ddot{a}}ssigkeit$ oder $Kausalit{\ddot{a}}t$, nicht angenommen. Der $Fahrl{\ddot{a}}ssigkeitsbeweis$ in der Rechtsprechung entwickelt sich mit dem Beweis nach objektivem $Ma{\ss}stab$, der Vermutung nach Anschein-Beweis und der $Beschr{\ddot{a}}nkung$ mit der Wahrscheinlichkeit. Bei Letzterem $geh{\ddot{o}}rt$ es $schlie{\ss}lich$ zum medizinischen Bereich. Ein Eintritt in den fachliche Bereich im Rahmen der Beweislast stellt der Beweiserleichterung $gegen{\ddot{u}}ber$. Aus diesem Hintergrund ist ${\S}630$ h Abs. 5 BGB bemerkenswert, wonach das Vorliegen eines groben Behandlungsfehler $regelm{\ddot{a}}{\ss}ig$ zur Vermutung von der $Kausalit{\ddot{a}}tszusammenhang$ $f{\ddot{u}}hrt$. Dieser Paragraph ist inhaltlich als Beweislastumkehr angesehen. Damit ist es von Nutzen im Fall des groben Fehler, der beim - elementaren - kunstgerechten Verhalten nicht entstanden $h{\ddot{a}}tte$, wie $Hygienem{\ddot{a}}ngel$, ${\ddot{U}}berdosierung$ des Narkotikum.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.13 no.1
• /
• pp.91-123
• /
• 2012

Doctors and patients for the purpose of healing and treatment of disease through the contract will make a relationship. Doctors perform the medical practice for the state and illness of patient. Given that the patient did not cooperate in the doctor's medical practice, it is difficult to achieve the goal of disease healing. If the patient don't cooperate the medical care, and it is linked with a doctor's medical malpractice, patient's violation of obligation in medical cooperation is considered with negligence on the part of patients. However, this negligence should be limited to obvious cases that the patient's behavior is unreasonable although the doctor provides medical information to patients and induced the patient's response. Also, patient's violation of obligation in medical cooperation must result in adjusting the indemnification via a setoff of fault except the cases having causal relationship between doctor's fault and malpractice.

• Asia-pacific Journal of Multimedia Services Convergent with Art, Humanities, and Sociology
• /
• v.6 no.7
• /
• pp.17-26
• /
• 2016

Information spill was occurred several times in the country due to the negligence of the large internet service providers including SK Communications, Auction, KT. In order to judge the Internet Service Provider(ISP)'s liability in individual data spill caused by hacking, the violation of existing legislation or general principle of law's good faith principle has to be examined. However, based on current ISP's good faith principle, there is no objective standard for judging liability. Such uncertain range of protection action duty based on good faith principle generates complaint toward companies, therefore presentation of objective judgement range index on how to determine this range is needed. However due to the legal characteristic of above-mentioned law, it is not possible to fix the range of protection action duty and regulate it on law. In order to resolve this, rather than concerning simply on legal system level, fusion approach method is needed. Thus, this research will discuss the measure for objective standard for predicting ISP's range of protection action duty through fusion view dividing in technical, legal and administrative aspects.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.20 no.1
• /
• pp.163-201
• /
• 2019

Doctor has the duty of an inter-hospital transfer, known as inter-facility or secondary transfer, when the diagnostic and therapeutic facilities required for a patient are not available at the given hospital. Also, the decision to transfer the patient to an another facility is rely on whether ill patient is the benefits of care, including clinical and non-clinical reasons, available at the another facility against the potential risks. Crucial point to note is that issues about 'inter-hospital transfer' is limited to questions occurred in the course of transfer between emergency medicals (facilities). 'emergency medical (facility)' is specified by Medical Law, article 3 and the duty of an inter-hospital transfer includes any possible adverse events, medical or technical, during the transfer. Because each medical facility has an different ability to care for a patient in an emergency condition, coordination between the referring and receiving hospitals' emergency medicals would be important to ensure prompt transfer to the definitive destination avoiding delay at an emergency. Simultaneously, transfer of documents about the transfer process, medical record and investigation reports are important materials for maintaining continuity of medical care. Although the duty of an inter-hospital transfer is recognized as one of duty of doctor and more often than not it occurs, there is constant legal conflict between a doctor and a patient related to the duty of the inter-hospital transfer. Therefore, we need clear and specific legal standard about the inter-hospital transfer. This paper attempts to review the Supreme Court's cases associated to the inter-hospital transfer and to compare opinion of the cases with guideline for an inter-hospital transfer already given. Furthermore, this article is intended to broaden our horizons of understanding the duty of an inter-hospital transfer and I wish this article helps to resolve the settlement and case dealt with the duty of inter-hospital transfer.