• 의료법학
• /
• 제12권1호
• /
• pp.227-255
• /
• 2011

Recently, many nations said "yes" to human embryonic stem cell research, signing an executive order to permit funding for the research in the mame of achieving health and life of humankind. Human Embryo Research is permitted by our Bioethics & Biosafety Act. But, illegal research cannot be divorced from civil liability since it requires the destruction of eggs of fertilized eggs and personal rights of embryo-creator. After all, though we allow to do research embryo, we should control the capacity of abuse of embryo research for embryo-creator. If research violate the law(Bioethics & Biosafety Act or Civil Law, etc), it comes to a delict by pecuniary loss and non-pecuniary loss. When it comes to pecuniary loss, Human Embryo is not body but special property. Supreme Court maintained a stance that mental suffering is generally deemed as compensable for damages for the loss of property where a person's property right is invaded by a tort or non-performance of obligation. Thus, where mental suffering occurs, which cannot be compensated by recovery of property losses, the situation must be a special circumstance and the injured could claim consolation money for such losses only if the offender knew or would have known of such special circumstances(Supreme Court Decision 96Da31574 delivered on Nov, 26, 1996, etc.). That is to say, Supreme Court regards mental suffering through person's property right invaded by a tort as damages that have arisen through special circumstances. According to Civil law article 393 (2), the injured could claim consolation money for such losses only if only if the offender had foreseen or could have foreseen such circumstances. Also our court will solve through damages for non-pecuniary loss by complementary function of consolation money in that pecuniary loss could be difficult to valuate.

• 한국발생생물학회지:발생과생식
• /
• 제19권2호
• /
• pp.111-118
• /
• 2015

This article explores the questions regarding PND and PID, especially the concrete legal conditions for the justification of PND and PID. As such, the German law stipulating PND and PID in a very concrete and detailed manner is introduced and explained in comparison with the corresponding South Korean law. The South Korean Bioethics and Biosafety Act (BBA) stipulates various types of gene testing and does not demonstrate a delicate sense of each type of gene testing. In contrast to the South Korean regulation, in Germany, there exist specific regulations for genetic counseling. Especially in the case of PND, GEKO stipulates the process of genetic counseling very concretely, based on GenDG. In the case of PND and PID, it is important that the people concerned understand the meaning of testing in various angles, and restructuralize it by combining it with their own values as the diagnosis is directly combined with pregnancy/abortion, which influences the whole life of a woman (and her partner). In this context, the South Korean BBA needs to be amended as soon as possible. The sections on informed consent also need to be amended to make them more concrete. Furthermore, guidelines for concretizing the regulation of BBA need to be continuously formulated and developed.

• Journal of Genetic Medicine
• /
• 제4권2호
• /
• pp.186-189
• /
• 2007

현재까지 보고 된 유전질환을 포함한 희귀질환은 6000종이 넘으며, 이 중 2007년 12월 현재, 1,500종(임상검사 목적 1,211종과 연구 목적 289)의 유전자 검사가 가능하다. 외국의 경우, 원인 유전자가 밝혀지고 진단이 가능한 모든 유전질환에 대해 착상 전 및 산전 유전자검사가 가능한데 반해, 국내에서는 2005년 제정된 생명윤리 및 안전에 관한 법률 제25조 2항에 의해 착상전 및 산전 유전자검사가 가능한 유전 질환은 63종으로 제한되어 있다. 이 보고에서는, 63종으로 제한된 검사항목에 포함되어 있지 않아 산전 진단을 할 수 없게 된 최근의 증례를 검토하고 문제점과 대안에 대해 논의하였다. X-성염색체 연관 열성질환인 MNK의 보인자로 확진된 L씨(여 38세)는 2명의 자녀를 출산하였는데, 그중 1명은 MNK에 이환된 남아로 출생 후 사망하였다. L씨는 2003년에 산전 유전자검사를 실시하여 정상의 남아를 출산하였다. 현재 임신 중인 L씨는 MNK에 이환된 남아를 또다시 출산할 가능성이 50%로 산전 유전자 검사가 필요하지만, 2005년에 제정된 생명윤리 및 안전에 관한 법률에 의해 산전 유전자검사가 법적으로 불가능하였다. 이 증례는 유전질환 검사항목을 63종으로 제한한 현행법의 문제점과 질환 형평성의 문제점을 실질적으로 보여주고 있다. 질환 명에 상관없이 유전질환의 가족력이 있는 가족에게는 산전 유전자검사에 대한 자기결정의 기회가 제공되어야 할 것이며, 만일, 현행법의 개정이 현실적으로 불가능하다면, MNK처럼 3년 내에 사망에 이르는 등 질병의 정도가 심하며, 효과적인 치료 방법이 없는 질환에 대해서는 산모나 가족이 원하는 경우 전문의의 전문적인 판단에 근거하여 예외가 인정되어야 한다고 사료된다.

• 한국발생생물학회지:발생과생식
• /
• 제21권3호
• /
• pp.343-349
• /
• 2017

tWith the development of the third-generation gene scissors, CRISPR-Cas9, concerns are being raised about ethical and social repercussions of the new gene-editing technology. In this situation, this article explores the legislation and interpretation of the positive laws in South Korea. The BioAct does not specify and regulate 'gene editing' itself. However, assuming that genetic editing is used in the process of research and treatment, we can look to the specific details of the regulations for research on humans as well as gene therapy research in order to see how genetic editing is regulated under the BioAct. BioAct differentiates the regulation between (born) humans and embryos etc. and the regulation differ entirely in the manner and scope. Moreover, due to the fact that gene therapy products are regarded as drugs, they fall under different regulations. The Korean Pharmacopoeia Act put stringent sanctions on clinical trials for gene therapy products and the official Notification "Approval and Examination Regulations for Biological Products, etc." by Food and Drug Safety Administration may be applied to gene editing for gene therapy purposes.