• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.21 no.2
• /
• pp.163-207
• /
• 2020

Korea has been positioned as the leading country in the industry of clinical trials as the clinical trail of Korea has developed for the recent 10 years. Clinical trial has plays a significant role in the development of medicine and the increase of curability. However, it has inevitable risk as the purpose of the clinical trial is to prove the safety and effectiveness of new drugs. Therefore, the clinical trial should be controlled properly to protect the health of the subjects of clinical trial and to ensure that they exercise a right of self-determination. In this context, the fiduciary duties of doctors who conduct clinical trials is especially important. The Pharmaceutical Affairs Act and the relevant regulations define several duties of doctors who conduct clinical trials. In particular, the duty to protection of subjects and the duty to provide information constitute the main fiduciary duties to the subjects. Those are essentially similar to the fiduciary duties of doctors in usual treatment from the perspective of the values promoted by the law and the content of the law. Nonetheless, clinical trials put more emphasis on the duties to provide explanation than in usual treatment. Further research and study are required to establish the concrete standard for the duty of care. However, if the blind pursuit of higher standards for the duty of care or to pass the burden of proof to doctors may result in disrupting the development of clinical trials, limiting the accessibility of patients to new treatment and even violating the principle of sharing damage equally and properly. In addition to these duties, the laws of clinical trials define several duties of doctors. Any decision on whether the violation of the law constitutes the violation of the fiduciary duty and justifies the demand for compensation of damages should be based on whether relevant law aims to protect the safety and benefit of subjects, even if in an incidental way, the degree to which such violation breaches the values promoted by the law and the concrete of violation of benefit of law, the detailed acts of such violation. The legal interests of the subjects can be protected effectively by guaranteeing compliance with those duties and establishing judicial and administrative controls to ensure that the benefit of subjects are protected properly in individual cases.

• Korean Journal of Forensic Psychology
• /
• v.11 no.2
• /
• pp.135-153
• /
• 2020

Identifiable victim effect refers to the tendency of greater sympathy and helping behavior to identifiable victims than to abstract, unidentifiable ones. This research tested whether this tendency also affects third-party's punishment and compensation judgments in jury context for public's legal judgments. In addition, through the Identifiable victim effect in such legal judgment, we intended to explain the effect of 'the bill named for victim', putting the victim's real name and identity at the forefront, which is aimed at strengthening the punishment of related crimes by gaining public attention and support. To do so, we conducted experiments with hypothetical traffic accident scenarios that controlled legal components while manipulating victim's identifying information. In experiment 1, each participant read a scenario of an anonymous victim (unidentifiable condition) or a nonanonymous victim that included personal information such as name and age (identifiable condition) and made judgments on the degree of punishment and compensation. The results showed no effect of identifiability on third-party's punishment and compensation judgments, but moderation effect of BJW was obtained in the identifiable condition. That is, those with higher BJW showed greater tendency of punishment and compensation for identifiable victims. In Experiment 2, we compared an anonymous victim (unidentifiable condition) against a well-conducted victim (positive condition) and ill-conducted victim (negative condition) to test the effects of victim's characteristics on punishment for offender and compensation for victims. The results showed lower compensation for an ill-conducted victim than for an anonymous one. In addition, across all conditions except for negative condition, participants made punishment and compensation judgments higher than the average judicial precedents of 10-point presented in the rating scale. This research showed that victim's characteristics other than legal components affects third-party's legal decision making. Furthermore, we interpreted third-party's tendency to impose higher punishment and compensation with effect of 'the bill named for victim' and proposed social and legal discussion for and future research.