• 의료법학
• /
• 제14권2호
• /
• pp.143-172
• /
• 2013

In order to achieve the purpose of treatment for patients by a doctor, the instruction explanation obligation, which means that he should give patients the description in more details to prepare for postoperative sequelae or complications, is common with the advice explanation obligation as a doctor should ex-plain some information to patients. Since the advice explanation obligation is the benefit and protection of the law for self determination right, but the instruction explanation obligation is one for the integrity of body and life, one can be distinct from the other. Judgments giving the instruction on the concept of instruction explanation obligation, specific methods of implementation and a range of compensation for damage are recently being made by courts at all levels including the Supreme Court. It is the time to systematize them. The contents which have been mainly discussed so far include the essence of above mentioned instruction explanation obligation. However, when the tendency of practice is considered, the efforts are required to admit the organic relevance between instruction explanation obligation and advice explanation obligation and to explain the relationship without any contradiction. For whereabouts of li-ability of proof, patients theoretically demonstrate the failure to implement it. However, when the theoretical consistency is maintained, it is likely to fail the intent to recognize the instruction explanation obligation and it may ask patients to prove something impossible to be proven. Thus, these things should be considered. Moreover, as the instruction explanation obligation is associated with medicine instruction obligation of a pharmacist and the coverage is being extended, it is the time to require the systematic study on the theoretical limit.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제12권1호
• /
• pp.177-225
• /
• 2011

Verdicts related to major medical litigation given by the Seoul Central District Court, the Seoul High Court and the Supreme Court in 2010 were analyzed. It's shown that in cases of the medical negligence regarding the occurrence of neonatal cerebral palsy, the plaintiff claims were dismissed using criteria proposed by associations of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Pediatrics in US, and thereof the burden of plaintiffs to prove the medical negligence has increased. In addition, in case of that the expected survival period of infants gets longer, payments for treatment and nursing after survival period determined by judges are made and it was judged to compensate it as a periodical indemnity. In case for the explanation obligation the most frequently mentioned in the medical litigation, in addition to cases of invoking the existing theory of explanation obligation, verdicts to mention the instructions of theory regarding instruction explanation obligation and the possibility of compensation for damages on property are given. Particularly, in cases for a liability of reparation by exaggerating the effects and not disclosing the risks related to treatment with stem cells, even if the treatment not approved by Food and Drug Administration is in violation of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Law, it's not illegal as violation in Pharmaceutical Affairs Law itself. But there is a certain verdict to present the possibility of an extension of the theory of explanation obligation by acknowledging the liability of reparation caused by illegal acts with no explanations of effects and risks of treatment with stem cell by doctors and pharmaceutical companies. In an incident in which a mental patient fell and died through the opened door of the roof at the hospital, a liability of reparation was acknowledged due to defects in structure installation management and this verdict drew an attention since the overall management responsibility about patients including structures was acknowledged to the hospital besides the obligations on medical practice. In case of the verdict without giving the opportunity to state the opinion with respect to the main legal issues, the responsibility of the court was emphasized since the court did not fulfill the explanation obligations. There were some cases in which payments for nursing and caring to a patient in vegetative state during the plastic surgery was admitted. However, in dental-related incidents, the proportion of cases in which plaintiff won was low since the difficulty of proving may be reflected. In the area of administrative litigation, unlike the existing position regarding arbitrary medical charge cover collected from patients in hospital, the verdict to admit the legitimacy of collection of medical treatment was given and attracted the attention of people. Verdict in which the expression related to medical advertisement was not exaggerated disposed the original verdict and pointed out the problem of excessive regulations on medical advertisement. The effort to analyze the trend of verdicts of court through reviewing the decisions and to organize should be continued, but the full decision should be disclosed as a base, and people and systems to enable the all time monitoring should be prepared.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제14권1호
• /
• pp.303-354
• /
• 2013

In 2012, the major jurisdictions regarding medical cases caused the controversial issues towards medical and legal fields by getting the judgments from the Supreme Court, which admitted the exceptional admissibility on discretionary grant. By regarding the serial negligence of medical organizations as a separate tort, the sentences which made up irrationality, were spoken by the court. As a result, if the treatment was made, which did not follow the entered matters in medical documents attached, the court announced the jurisdiction that presumes the negligence, which provided the evidence of negligence; on the other hand, this gave had the burden to medical branch to take great care for medicinal treatment. To be applicable for the Principle of Trust, the doctors have to give and take the necessary information for the treatment process and symptom decisions, which also commented in the court. Thus, this case made it difficult to apply the Principle of Trust and considered all the conditions as tough ones, which eventually induced lesser faults for patients' care. Moreover, the court confirmed that the medical ads sending the emails to the members belong to the internet portal sites, are not the inducing behavior by considering that the actions are only medical ads. Furthermore, in the case of Namsu Kim, the court's interpretation was rather limited the definition for medical practice that announced limited Erweiterung der Strafbarkeit cases by lower courts. As a consequence, it is very interesting whether the Supreme Court may change their position and concerning the duty of explanation, the trend to expand the contents and scopes for the duty of explanation continues by admitting instruction explanation obligation and all the compensations and so on.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제18권2호
• /
• pp.163-194
• /
• 2017

관상동맥 질환은 2017년 고령사회로 진입한 우리나라에서 앞으로 더 많은 관심을 가질 것이다. 고령화가 될수록 고혈압, 당뇨 등 복합적인 질환이 합병되어 혈관상태도 상대적으로 더 나빠져 관상동맥 질환에 걸릴 가능성이 높기 때문이다. 심혈관 질병은 심장외과와 심장내과와의 긴밀한 협진이 필요하다. 따라서 협심증이나 심근경색증환자를 먼저 진료하게 되어 있는 우리나라의 임상현장에서 객관적인 심장내과 의사의 치료방침에 대한 판단은 매우 중요하다. 최근 심장내과의 비수술적 중재술이 발전하고 있지만 무리한 스텐트 시술로 의료사고도 발생하고 있다. 특히 관상동맥 3개혈관이 모두 막힌 삼중혈관이거나 석회화가 심해 혈관 상태가 좋지 않은 경우가 문제이다. 또한 심장외과 의사가 없는 병원에서 무리하게 경피적관상동맥중재술을 실시하다가 응급상황이 발생할 경우 관상동맥이식술 등 외과적 대처가 어려운 경우가 종종 발생한다. 최근 2년간 한국소비자원(소비자분쟁조정위원회) 의료분쟁 조정결정 8사례를 분석한 결과, 심장 중재술을 시행한 병원 중 심장외과 의사가 상주한 곳은 2곳으로 확인됐다. 8사례 모두 심장내과 진료 후 풍선확장술 및 스텐트 삽입한 경우로 7명이 사망했고 이중 5명은 시술 당일에 사망했다. 8사례 중에 3중혈관 환자는 5건이고, 나머지도 석회화가 심하거나 완전폐쇄로 혈관상태가 좋지 않은 상태였다. 2017년 심장내과 스텐트 시술 건수 조사 보고에 의하면 3개 이하 약물 방출 스텐트 시술이 98%로 보고됐다. 2015년 스텐트 시술 건수가 38,922건으로 약800건(2%)은 스텐트가 4개 이상 사용된 것으로 추정된다. 무리한 스텐트 시술로 마지막 여명에 급사함으로써 신변정리 기회상실은 물론 여명단축에 따른 손해로서 '지도 설명의무' 책임을 물어 전 손해에 대한 배상을 신중하게 고려할 필요가 있다. 최근 심평원 보험적용 스텐트 시술 개수 제한규제가 없어지면서 무리한 시술과 심장외과 의사 확충에 대한 문제가 있다. '다학제통합진료' 같은 병원차원의 해결방안은 물론 필수요원에 해당하는 심장외과를 공무원으로 확충하는 등 국가차원의 해결방안이 요구된다.