• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.18 no.2
• /
• pp.105-138
• /
• 2017

This is case comments of several representative legal cases regarding self- determination right of patient. In a case in which an intoxicated patient attempted suicide refusing treatment, the Supreme Court ruled that the medical team's respect for the patient's decision was an act of malpractice, and that in particular medical situations (medical emergencies) the physician's duty to preserve life supersedes the patient's rights to autonomy. Afterwards, at the request of the patient's family, and considering the patient's condition (irrecoverable death stage, etc.) consistent with a persistent vegetative state, the Supreme Court deduced the patient's intention and decide to withdraw life-sustaining treatment. More recently, regarding patients who refuse blood transfusions or other necessary treatment due to religious beliefs, the Supreme Court established a standard of judgment that can be seen as conferring equal value to the physician's duty to respect patient autonomy and to preserve life. An empirical study of legal precedent with regard to cases in which the physician's duty to preserve life conflicts with the patient's autonomy, grounded in respect for human dignity, can reveal how the Court's perspective has reflected the role of the patient as a decision-making subject and ways of respecting autonomy in Korean society, and how the Court's stance has changed alongside changing societal beliefs. The Court has shifted from judging the right to life as the foremost value and prioritizing this over the patient's autonomy, to beginning to at least consider the patient's formally stated or deducible wishes when withholding or withdrawing treatment, and to considering exercises of self determination right based on religious belief or certain other justifications with informed refusal. This will have a substantial impact on medical community going forward, and provide implicit and explicit guidance for physicians who are practicing medicine within this environment.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.20 no.2
• /
• pp.43-82
• /
• 2019

In Korea surrogate medical decision makings happen without legal grounds. The purpose of this article is to research the issues in preparing policies for decision-making on behalf of unrepresented patients. As aspects of comparative law, there are two approaches. One of them is to regulate default surrogate list. If no agent or guardian has been appointed, some legislatures provide that members of patient's family who is reasonably available, in descending order of priority of not, may act as surrogate: (1) the spouse, unless legally separated; (2) an adult child; (3) a parent; or (4) an adult brother or sister. If none of them is eligible to act as surrogate, some legislatures allow close friends to make health-care decisions for adult individuals who lack capacity. On the other hand there are other legislatures which provide no surrogate decision maker list but oblige the responsible authority to determine with advice of family members or friends of the patient. In the end the first approach can not guarantee that the surrogate decision maker like family members or friends will determine in the best interest of the patient.

• Journal of the korean academy of Pediatric Dentistry
• /
• v.44 no.3
• /
• pp.350-357
• /
• 2017

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the difference of differentiation potential in each passage of dental pulp stem cells from supernumerary tooth (sDPSCs). The sDPSCs were obtained from a healthy 6-year-old male patient under the guidelines and got the informed consent. Cells were cultured until passage number 16 and divided into two groups; 1 - 8 passages as a young group and 9 - 16 passages as an old group. It was taken $2.25{\pm}0.46days$ in a young group and $3.25{\pm}0.46days$ in an old group to propagate cells of each passage until confluence and there were statistically significant differences between two groups (p < 0.05). In every passage, cell morphology was observed with microscope and evaluated the capacity to form high levels of minerals by alizarin red solution staining after treating differentiation medium. Fibroblast-like, spindle shaped, elongated cells and a few nodules were found in uninduced cultures of passage number 1, 8 and 9. But at 16 passage culture, cell size became larger and broader and observed with more nodules. After inducing differentiation, mineralized nodules were detected at the first passage of 7th day culture whereas at the 8 passage culture, nodules were seen clearly at 14th day culture. In addition, the amount of mineralized nodules were remarkably decreased after passage 9. From the data presented in this study, it is recommended to use sDPSCs of passage number within 8 for utilizing as stem cells.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.23 no.2
• /
• pp.119-139
• /
• 2022

Brain stimulation technology that administers electrical and magnetic stimulation to a brain has shown a significant level of possibility for treating a wide range of various neurological and psychiatric disorders. Depending on its nature, the technology is defined either as invasive or non-invasive, and deep brain stimulation (DBS) is one of the most well-known invasive brain stimulation technologies. Currently categorized as grade 4 medical device in accordance with Guideline On Medical Devices And Their Grades, a Notification of Ministry of Food and Drug Safety (MFDS), the DBS has been used as a stable treatment for several diseases. At the same time, the DBS technology has recently achieved substantial advancement, encouraging active discussions for its use from various perspectives. On the contrary, debates over legal regulation related to the use of DBS has relatively been smaller in numbers. In this context, this article aims to 1) introduce the DBS technology and its safety in setting out the tone; 2) touch upon major legal issues that would potentially rise from its use for four different purposes of treatment, clinical study, areas of non-standard treatment where no other methods are available, and enhancement; and finally 3) highlight disputes concerning common emerging issues observed in the aforementioned four purposes from the viewpoint of legal responsibility and liability of using the DBS, which are benefit-risk assessment, physicians' duty of information, patients' capacity to consent, control for device, and insurance coverage.