• 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.21 no.1
• /
• pp.153-185
• /
• 2020

In principle, even if serious consequences such as death or serious injury of a patient occur as a result of a medical accident, if the medical malpractice of a health care worker is not recognized, the health care worker is not held liable for said consequences. However, with the opening of the Korea Medical Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Agency on April 7, 2012, a system was established to compensate health care personnel for their medical malpractices only in the case of "injuries caused by medical accidents in the course of childbirth" (hereinafter referred to as "program for compensation of medical accidents"). Article 46 paragraph 1 of the current Medical Dispute Mediation Act, which is the basis of the Force Majeure Medical Accident Compensation System, stipulates that "medical accidents under delivery" claims are to be determined by the Medical Accident Compensation Review Committee are subject to the compensation project. And the details of the compensation, ratio of sharing financial resources for compensation, scope of compensation, and the guidelines and procedure for the payment of compensations are prescribed by Presidential Decree. In other words, the Presidential Decree requires the state to pay 70 percent of the compensation funds, and 30 percent of the above funds among health care providers. The Constitutional Court has decided on the 2015Hun-Ga13 that the scope of the health care institution's founders and the share of the compensation funds cannot be directly determined by the law, and that the portion delegated by the Presidential decree does not violate the Principle of Legal Protection nor Comprehensive Nondelegation Doctrine. However, this can be seen as an exclusion of accountability for force-induced delivery accidents even if there is no negligence of the medical staff. If the nature of the system is a type of social security system with a social compensatory nature, it could consider eliminating the health care innovator's cost-sharing provisions, leaving the full cost to the state. However, it is also necessary to review institutional protocols that strengthen the efforts of medical institutions in areas such as analysis of the causes of medical accidents and measures to prevent their recurrence. In addition, I think that the conclusion of the Act is in line with the purpose of the Comprehensive Wage Support Regulations that at minimum the law sets an upper limit of the compensation funds that are to be paid by health and medical institutions. Moreover, it is reasonable for the Medical Accident Compensation Review Committee to specify gestational age and weight of births, which are the criteria for compensation, under the Enforcement Decree of the Medical Dispute Mediation Act, in relation to the criteria for payment of contributions by the Medical Accident Compensation Review Committee, and to set the detailed criteria.

• Korean Security Journal
• /
• no.57
• /
• pp.177-203
• /
• 2018

Police Assigned to Special Guard Act was legislated in 1962 to solve issues regarding the protection of various staple industrial installations, and in 2001, the Security Services Industry Act was revised to establish an effective security system for important national facilities. Thereby the Special Guards System was instituted. The current law has two parts, with the Police Assigned to Special Guard System and Special Guards System, and many scholars have actively discussed the appropriateness of the integration of both systems to solve problems caused by a bimodal system. However, in spite of these discussions taking place in the academic world, the idea of unification lost its power when the guarantee of status regulation was established for the police assigned to special guard. Strictly speaking, police assigned to special guard is a self-guard, and a special guard is a contractual guard. So, both of them have pros and cons. Thus, it would be desirable to give a legal, constitutional guarantee for both systems by strengthening each of them and making up for the weakness of each of them rather than trying to unify police assigned to special guard and special guard. To begin this process, we need to revise unreasonable legal provisions of Security Services Industry Act and Police Assigned to Special Guard Act as below. First, since the actual responsibilities of special guards and police assigned to special guard duty are the same, we need to make the facilities which they use equal. Second, legal provisions need to be revised so that a special guard may perform the duties of a police officer, according to the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers, within the facility that needs to be secured in order to prevent any vacancy in the guarding of an important national facility. Third, disqualifications for the special guards need to be revised to be the same as the disqualifications for the police assigned to special guard duty. Fourth, it is reasonable to unify the training institution for special guards and for police assigned to special guard duty, and it should be the training institution for police. On-the-job education for a security guard needs to be altered to more than 4 hours every month just like the one for police assigned to special guard duty. Fifth, for a special guard, it is not right to limit the conditions in their using weapons to 'use of weapon or explosives' only. If one possesses 'dangerous objects such as weapon, deadly weapon, and so on' and resists, a special guard should be able to use their weapon against that person. Thus, this legal provision should be revised. Sixth, penalty, range of fines, and so on for police assigned to special guard duty need to be revised to be the same as the ones for a special guard. If we revise these legal provisions, we can correct the unreasonable parts of Security Services Industry Act and Police Assigned to Special Guard Act without unifying them. Through these revisions, special guards and police assigned to special guard duty may develop the civilian guard industry wholesomely under the law, and the civilians would have a wider range of options to choose from to receive high quality security service.