• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.17 no.2
• /
• pp.257-279
• /
• 2016

Recently, the Well-dying Act was legislated in Korea, and it will come into effect in August 4, 2017. This Act allows to withdraw the life sustaining treatment from impending death patients and also provide the hospice and palliative treatment to terminal patients. In the Supreme Court's case so called "Madam Kim", medical condition of Madam Kim was a persistent vegetative status owing to brain damage and her family members wanted to remove the artificial ventilation. In 2009, the Supreme Court allowed to withdraw the artificial ventilation under the specific conditions. We applied this new Well-dying Act to the Madam Kim's case hypothetically in order to know this Act can reasonably solve the problem of life sustaining treatment for dying or terminal patients. For the impending patients, the Well-dying Act has the problem not to withdraw the futile treatment due to the advance directives of patients. Vice versa, the terminal patients have no chance to withdraw the life sustaining treatment due to the this Act impose the duty to provide the hospice and palliative treatment despite of advance directives. We need to ruke out the persistent vegetative patients from the terminal patients caused by the cancer, acquired immune deficiency syndrome, chronic obstructive lung disease and chronic liver cirrhosis, In addition, we have to discuss the effect of the advance directives of terminal patients in view of self determination right.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.23 no.1
• /
• pp.37-80
• /
• 2022

By analyzing informed consent and the refusal of emergency medical treatment (called patient dumping) under the current Emergency Medical Service Act, this study suggests that an emergency medical professional is only liable for patient dumping if their duty to protect the patient's life takes precedence over the patient's right to self-determination. In emergency medical situations, as in general medical situations, medical treatment should be performed after the emergency medical professional informs the patient about the medical treatment, including its necessity and methods, and obtains consent from the patient. Refusing or evading the performance of emergency medical services on the excuse of the informed consent not considering a waiver or alteration of informed consent requirements without reasonable reasons violates the Emergency Medical Service Act and thus makes an emergency medical professional liable to administrative disposition or criminal penalty. In other words, depending on the existence of a waiver of alteration of the informed consent, patient dumping may be established. If the patient is a minor or has no decision-making ability, and their legal representative makes a decision against the patient's medical interests, the opinion of the legal representative is not unconditionally respected. A minor also has the right to decide over their body, and the decisions of their legal representatives should be in the patient's best interests. If the patient refuses treatment, in principle, the obligation of life protection of emergency medical professionals is the top priority. However, making these decisions in the aforementioned situations in the emergency medical field is difficult because of the absence of explicit regulations regarding these exceptional problems. This study aims to organize the following precedents of the Supreme Court of Korea. The court states that, when balancing the conflicting interests between the duty to provide emergency medical service and the duty to inform is unavoidable for emergency medical professionals, they should put the duty to protect the patient's life ahead of the duty to inform if the patient's life matters. Exceptionally, when a patient has seriously considered whether they should receive treatment before the emergency medical situation, their right to self-determination can be considered equal to the obligation of emergency medical professionals to provide emergency medical treatment. This research also suggests that an amendment of the Emergency Medical Service Act should include the following. First, the criteria for determining the decision-making ability of emergency patients should consist of medical content. Second, additional consent from a medical professional is unnecessary for first-aid treatment. Finally, new provisions for emergency medical obligations for minors, new provisions for the decision standard when there are conflicting opinions about the treatment of a patient, and new penalty provisions for professionals who suspend emergency medical examinations and treatments need to be established.

• Journal of Hospice and Palliative Care
• /
• v.19 no.4
• /
• pp.292-295
• /
• 2016

Hospice and palliative care in Taiwan has been growing continuously. The 2015 Quality of Death index, as rated by the Economist Intelligence Unit, ranked Taiwan first among Asian countries and sixth in the world. In this review article, we highlight three particular areas that might have contributed to this success; the laws and regulations, spiritual care and research network. Finally, we discuss the future challenges and prospects for Taiwanese encounters. A systemic review was conducted with the keywords "hospice palliative care Taiwan" using PubMed. The passing of the "Natural Death Act" in 2000 set the example and established a landmark for patient autonomy in Asia; it guarantees the patient's right to request that medical staff do not resuscitate (DNR) them and to reject other futile medical treatments at the end of their life, thus reflecting the importance of palliative care from the policy perspective. In 2015, Taiwan passed another pioneering law entitled the "Patient Autonomy Act". This law states that a patient may decline medical treatment according to his/her own will. Taiwanese indigenous spiritual care was launched in 2000. It requires a Buddhist Chaplain to successfully complete a training program consisting of lectures, as well as bedside practicum before applying Buddhist practices to end-of-life care. The Japan-Korea-Taiwan research network was established for the purpose of enabling collaborative research for the East-Asian collaborative cross-cultural Study to Elucidate the Dying process (EASED) cohort. With consensus from the government and society to make it a priority, hospice and palliative medicine in Taiwan has been growing steadily.

• 한국노년학
• /
• v.38 no.3
• /
• pp.501-519
• /
• 2018

The purpose of this study was to explore perception about shared decision making of family caregivers of patients with early dementia (PWED). This study was conducted with a sample of 12 family caregivers (mean age = $71.4{\pm}10.4$) of PWED from three dementia safety centers in Seoul. In-depth interviews were done for each participant about shared decision making and data were analyzed using qualitative content analysis. Six categories and 17 sub-categories identified for participants' perception about shared decision making: means to facilitate communication with patients with dementia, means to secure autonomy of patients, opportunity to facilitate treatment, cause of increasing family caregivers' burden, cause of worsening relationship with patients, and option for choices depending on priority change. The findings of this study can provide a knowledge basis for health care professionals and policy makers to understand how family caregivers of PWED think about shared decision making. It would be of great value to develop educational programs and practical guidelines about shared decision making for PWED and their family, which may contribute to respecting PWED's self-determination right as well as reducing burden of their family.

• 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.

• Journal of the Korean Home Economics Association
• /
• v.30 no.3
• /
• pp.193-204
• /
• 1992

The purpose of this article is (1) to measure the attitudes of health care consumers towards medical service, the physicians' duty to provide information and patient self-determination options, (2) to discover the their related variables. The attitude of health care consumers towards medical service reveals statistically significant corelation with age and education. Among the statistically significant independent variables it is significantly related with age in the multiple regression analysis. The attitude of health care consumers towards the physicians' duty to provide information reveals statistically significant corelation with age, education and the attitude of health care consumers towards medical service. Among these independent variables it is significantly related with the attitude of health care consumers towards medical service in the multiple regression analysis. The attitude of health care consumers towards patients' self-determination options reveals statistically significant corelation with age, the attitude of health care consumers towards medical service and the attitude of health care consumers towards the physicians' duty to provide information. Among these independent variables it is significantly related with the attitude of health care consumers towards the physicians' duty to provide information in the multiple regression analysis.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.24 no.4
• /
• pp.37-63
• /
• 2023

In medical litigation, there are various cases where a doctor's 'explanation' of a patient becomes problematic. Medical explanations and guidance are required from the doctor, starting from the beginning of diagnosis, through treatment processes such as surgery, when hospitalization is necessary for treatment, during hospitalization, upon discharge, and after discharge. Furthermore, notification from the doctor or medical institution may be requested regarding the economic costs that will be incurred due to medical treatment. South Korea's judiciary has been developing legal principles regarding such doctor's explanations by distinguishing between explanations for obtaining consent for medical treatment and medical explanations related to guidance on patient treatment methods, taking into account related laws such as the stage of treatment and the Medical Service Act. Additionally, the Constitutional Court recently ruled on the non-benefit cost notification system linked to the explanation of economic costs. However, holding a doctor accountable solely because the doctor's explanation was insufficient has aspects that do not correspond to the actual situation in clinical reality, and may have a reflexive disadvantage that results in a decline in legal rights. Therefore, the doctor's explanation needs to be examined from both perspectives: guaranteeing the patient's right to self-determination and protecting his or her right to decision.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.20 no.3
• /
• pp.83-139
• /
• 2019

Recognition of liability for damages due to medical malpractice has been developed largely on the basis of two paths. First is the case where there is an error in a physician's medical practice and this infringes upon the legal interests of life and body, and the compensation for monetary and non-monetary damages incurred from such infringement on life and body becomes an issue. Second is the case where there is a breach of a physician's duty of explanation that results in a infringement on the patient's right of autonomous decision, and the compensation for non-monetary damages incurred from such infringement becomes an issue. However, even if there is a medical error, since it is difficult to prove the causation between the medical error of a physician and the infringement upon legal interests, the physician's responsibility for damage compensation is denied in some cases. Consider, for example, a case where a patient is already in the final stage of cancer and has a very low possibility of a complete recovery even if proper treatment is received from the physician. Here, it is not appropriate to refuse recognition of any damage compensation based on the reason that the possibility of the patient dying is very high even in the absence of a medical error. This is so because, at minimum, non-monetary damage such as psychological suffering is incurred due to the physician's medical error. In such a case, our courts recognize on an exceptional basis consolation money compensation for losing the chance to receive proper treatment. However, since the theoretical system has not been established in minutiae, what comes under the benefit and protection of the law is not clearly explicated. The recent discourse on compensating for damages incurred by patients, even when the causation between the physician's medical error and infringement upon the legal interests of life and body is denied, by establishing a new legal interest is based on the "legal principle of loss of opportunity for treatment." On what should be the substance of the new legal interest, treatment possibility argument, expectation infringement argument, considerable degree of survival possibility infringement argument and loss of opportunity for treatment argument are being put forth. It is reasonable to see the substance of this protected legal interest as "the benefit of receiving treatment appropriate to the medical standard" according to the loss of opportunity for treatment argument. The above benefit to the patient is a value inherent to human dignity that should not be infringed upon or obstructed by anyone, and at the same time, it is a basic desire regarding life and a benefit worthy of protection by law. In this regard, "the benefit of receiving treatment appropriate to the medical standard" can be made concrete as one of the general personal rights related to psychological legal interest.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.23 no.2
• /
• pp.67-96
• /
• 2022

"Aid in Dying" means that when a decision-making patient suffers from an incurable disease, a drug that can speed up death is prescribed by a doctor and used to lead to death. Since the suspension of life-sustaining treatment was institutionalized based on human dignity and patient autonomy, the question of whether assisted death can be legally justified in relation to the right to receive medical help to shorten one's life to die with dignity has recently been actively discussed. In Korea, since the suspension of life-sustaining treatment was institutionalized by the enactment of the Life-sustaining Treatment Decision Act in 2016, an amendment to the Life-sustaining Treatment Act was recently proposed to legalize Aid in Dying. The global trend is that human "Right to Die" is discussed in the division of life and death, from the suspension of life-sustaining treatment to assisted death, and again in the order of euthanasia. In this paper, we started discussing dignified death and institutionalized patients' right to self-determination, looked at the controversy in the United States, which legislated assisted death in many states since the 2000s, and analyzed the main contents of California's End of Life Option Act and the data after enforcement. The strict requirements for Aid in Dying, such as voluntary confirmation of patients' intentions and doctors' obligation to provide information, and the results of California's Aid in dying system, composed of relatively diverse races, were reviewed.

• Development and Reproduction
• /
• v.14 no.2
• /
• pp.143-154
• /
• 2010

This article analyzes two leading Korean cases which led to opposite conclusions: the Boramae Hospital Case (Korean Supreme Court 2002 Do 995) and the Shinchon Severance Hospital Case (Korean Supreme Court 2009 Da 17471). In doing so, it pays particular attention to the acceptance, modification, and rejection of paternalism, specifically 'physician paternalism' and 'familial paternalism', both of which have long and strongly influenced the Korean medical environment. In Boramae Hospital, the Court emphasized the obligation of the physician in terms of the life of the patient (eg: protecting and preserving the life and welfare of the patient). Its position seemed to be based on the traditional physician paternalism which presupposes the ability of physicians to identify right and wrong choices according to natural laws. However, the Court saw itself as the final arbiter of who identifies and determines the real world content and consequences of that natural law. In short, the Court elevated itself to the supreme guardian of the patient, and held that its decision cannot be overruled by that of the patient's family. So without specifically referring to the importance of the family and the role of familial decisions, both long-observed traditions in medical decision-making in Korea, the Court shifted away from familial paternalism. In Shinchon Severance Hospital, the Court explained the meaning of the patient's powers of self-rulemore concretely, explaining its scope and substance in greater detail. The Court held that one can exercise the right of self-rule, even over issues such as death, in the form of 'previous medical directions'. However, this case does not represent a wholesale acceptance of medical autonomy (ie: it does not accept self-rule unconditionally). Rather, the Court accepted the importance of the opinions and decision of physicians and of the Hospital Ethics Commission, and the Court still retained to itself the authority to review and make alterations to 'material' decision. The Court did not overlook the importance of the decision of the patient's family, but it also did not relinquish its status as supreme guardian, emphasizing the 'objective' nature of a decision from the court.