• 의료법학
• /
• 제15권2호
• /
• pp.227-251
• /
• 2014

In current law, the premium medical treatment system gives patients the right of choice between normal medical treatment service and premium medical treatment service. Only the doctors having a career more than a certain period of time fixed in the law are eligible for providing the premium medical treatment service. So, the premium medical treatment system is highly related to the patients' right to know and the right of self-determination. The system is also relevant to the so-called 'economic explanation' notion because patients should pay additional fee when they want to use this system. Meanwhile, the situation as follows is problematic as to this system. Although a patient applied for using the premium medical treatment system and the patient also chose his or her own doctor specifically, another doctor who was not selected as premium doctor could make a medical accident. Then, is the another doctor liable for damages because the accident was a medical malpractice or a breach of medical contract? In this study, we are going to examine the problems related with the premium medical treatment system. First, we examine the current law related to the system. Second, we look into the economic explanation duty and its application to the premium medical treatment system. Finally, we examine a real judgment case about a medical practice against the premium medical treatment system and we propose our solution to this case.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제16권2호
• /
• pp.131-157
• /
• 2015

국민건강보험공단은 의사가 요양급여기준을 위반하여 처방을 함으로써 국민건강보험공단이 약국에 약제비를 지급하게 된 것은 의사가 국민건강보험공단에 대해 민사상 불법행위를 한 것이라고 주장하며 손해배상청구를 하였다. 대법원이 이를 인정하는 판결이 잇따르자, 국민건강보험공단은 의사들이 의료법을 위반하여 진료를 하여 약국에 지급하게 된 약제비나 해당 의료기관에 지급하게 된 요양급여비용에 대해서도 모두 국민건강보험공단에 대한 민법상 불법행위라고 주장하며 손해배상을 청구하였으며, 대법원은 이를 모두 인정하였다. 그러나 우리나라 국민건강보험제도에서 보험급여의 주체는 국민건강보험공단이며, 환자가 의료기관에 진료를 요청하여 의료기관이 행하는 요양급여 역시 보험급여이므로 이러한 요양급여를 행하는 주체 역시 국민건강보험공단이다. 그리고 국민건강보험법은 의사의 의료법위반행위를 규제하기 위해 만든 법이 아니므로 의사의 의료법 위반행위를 국민건강보험공단에 대한 민법상 불법행위책임에서의 위법성으로 포섭할 수 없다. 그렇다면 환자가 보건복지부장관으로부터 부여 받은 면허를 가진 의사에 의해 요양급여기준에 맞는 진료를 받은 경우에는 국민건강보험공단은 민법상 환자에게 요양급여를 해 줄 의무를 면하는 이득을 얻었으므로 설사 해당 의사가 진료를 하는 과정에 의료법을 위반한 행위를 하였더라도 국민건강보험공단으로서는 손해가 없다. 대법원이 의료법위반으로 진료를 한 행위를 모두 국민건강보험공단에 대한 민법상 불법행위책임으로 인정하는 것은 국민건강보험공단이 보험급여의 주체로서 보험급여를 해 줄 의무를 면하였다는 이득은 고려하지 않고, 오로지 의사에게 요양급여비용을 지급하였다는 측면만을 고려한 것으로서 민법 제750조의 법리에 어긋난다. 의사가 의료법을 위반하였다면 의료법에 따라 제재를 받을 일이지, 국민건강보험법으로 규율할 일이 아니며, 대법원이 위와 같이 판결한 것은 국민건강보험법의 법리와 민법의 법리를 혼동한 탓으로 생각된다.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제14권2호
• /
• pp.173-214
• /
• 2013

Traditionally, the Supreme Court has held that medical treatment agreements covered by national health insurance should be distinguished from other medical treatment agreements which are viewed as a consummation of the autonomous free will between doctor and patient. Namely, the Supreme Court views medical treatment agreements covered by national health insurance to be bound by the National Health Insurance Law with the intent to promote the applicability and comprehensiveness of the national health insurance scheme. Yet, issues of voluntary non-reimbursable treatments are triggered not only by the mistakes or moral hazard of medical care institutions but also by systemic limitations of national health insurance coverage criteria. Thus, there is a need for legislative measures that allow certain medical treatments to be included or reflected in the national health insurance coverage system so that patients may receive prompt and flexible medical treatments. To reflect such concerns, the Supreme Court made an exception for voluntary non-reimbursable treatments and developed a strict test to be applied in such cases in Supreme Court Judgment 2010 Doo 27639, 27646 (ruled on June 8, 2012 by the Grand Bench). Such judgment, however, is not a fundamental overturn of the Supreme Court's prior rulings that voluntary non-reimbursable treatments are not allowed under the law. It is only a slight revision of its previous stance for cases in which there is a lack of legislative measures to make coverage of a new yet valid medical treatment possible under the current national health insurance coverage system.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제11권2호
• /
• pp.309-335
• /
• 2010

This study is a paper reviewed legal status of medical personnel and issues of law on recently discovered medical records. As the increase of medical personnel who have gone through the administrative disposal in regards to the medical records, it is needed to examine the legal issue or dispute on the medical records under the current law. Medical records are the statement on patient's medical conditions made by the medical personnel. This records are used as important source for patient's further treatment. This becomes the communication route between the patients and the other medical personnel, and it provides the patients a right to find out their medical information. According to the Medical Service Act (Article 21), a medical personnel shall prepare respectively a record book of medical examination and treatment. And medical personnel shall make a signature. Furthermore, the medical personnel or the opener of the medical institutions must preserve the record book (including an electronic medical record). Meanwhile, the issues of a ban on false entry, additional record, revision or manipulation on the medical record have been recently on the rise. This paper briefly examined the major issues in regards to the medical records. It especially clarified the legal duty on medical records and its major-contentious-issues. At the same time, it pointed out the problems of the unreasonable over interpretation of the law. Furthermore, this suggested the guidelines for the further discussion and review.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제15권1호
• /
• pp.303-333
• /
• 2014

The right to self-determination in regard to one's body is a key element of human dignity, privacy and freedom. It is constitutionally enshrined in the guarantee of human dignity, in the general right of personality and, most concretely of all, in the right to physical integrity. In principle No-one may trespass another person's body against his will, whether this act improves his physical condition or not. This right of self-determination applies equally to healthy and to sick people. Hence everyone has the right either to permit or to refuse a medical treatment, unless he can not make a rational decision. If the person does not consent himself, for whatever reason, another one must do for him as guardian. Representation in consent to medical treatment is therefore the exception of self-determination rule. This article explored, 1. who can consent to the medical treatment in the case of the mentally incapacitated adult and the infant, 2. what kind of consent to the medical treatment can the deputy determinate for the mentally incapacitated adult and the infant, 3. when the deputy can not determinate without permission of the court, and 4. what can the doctor do in the case of conflict between minors and guardians.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제8권2호
• /
• pp.69-118
• /
• 2007

In providing general medical treatments, the medical service contract between the patient and the doctor is the mutually responsible onerous contract. However, the nature of the mutually assumed contract standings of the patient and the doctor has been changing since the implementation of the national health insurance program. For instance, besides the cases of beyond excessive medical charges and medical negligence, if the doctor charged for his/her medical treatments violating the post-treatment/nursing cover criteria, the overpaid medical charge, regardless of being collected with the patient's consent, has to be refunded back to the patient. Medically needed aspects, treatment results, and unfair benefits favoring the patient are not at all taken into consideration in the health insurance scheme. This makes it easier for patients to get refunds for their share of the medical payments by involving the Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service or the National Health Insurance Corporation, without engaging in civil law suits (for reimbursement claim) against doctors. In other words, the doctor's responsibility to provide medical treatments and the patient's responsibility to pay for the medical treatment provided within the contractual realm are being demolished by the administrational arbitration of the National Health Insurance system. The basic rights of medical service providers, and the patient's right to choose are as important constitutional rights, as the National Health Insurance program, which is essential in the social welfare system. Furthermore, the development of the medical fields should not be prevented by the National Health Insurance system. If the medical treatment services can be divided into necessary treatments, general treatments, and high quality treatments, the National Health Insurance is supposed to guarantee the necessary and general treatments to provide medical treatments equally to all the insured with limited financial resources. However, for the high quality treatments, it is recommended that they should not be interfered by the National Health Insurance system, and that they should be left to the private contract between the patient and the doctor.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제14권1호
• /
• pp.209-236
• /
• 2013

The concept of expectation rights considers 'the expectation' that the patient should be given proper medical treatment as the benefit and protection of the law, so it would be the benefit and protection of the law due to personal rights different from 'the legal principle that has the possibility to a considerable extent' being in an extension of life and body. However, the problem how the patient's expectation of medical service sets up in order to make it the benefit and protection of the law would be still left in the vague concept of the patient's 'expectation', thus, in the first place, the medical practice following formed medical standard in every particular medical institutes should be the standard because these medical services are normally within a range of the patients' expectations. In addition, it should be naturally constituted as mental profit to get the subjective circumstances such as 'the patient's expectation' to be an object, and also, different from the profit and protection of the law such as life and body that should be absolutely protected, the origin of violation behavior should be regarded simultaneously to define the denotation of expectation rights. Therefore, the expectation rights violations would be problematic in case it fails to reach the medical standard that is expected for common doctors to practice properly. This is the concept of expectation rights that gets subjective matters such as the patient's expectation to be objectivity as medical practices that can be expected by generalized abstract doctors. This standard should be defined as the minimum standard that is naturally expected for doctors to practice, different from medical standard that decides the level of doctors.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제9권1호
• /
• pp.461-503
• /
• 2008

The right to live is the most valuable benefit and protection of the law. And Medical science is the study considering value of life as the top priority. As modern medical science has progressed and expanding lifespan skills have developed, the number of symptom, called a human vegetable, has been also increased. As a result, people concerns whether euthanasia should be permitted. (1) Active euthanasia is prohibited and a doctor who conduct it is punished. (2) Indirect euthanasia can be permitted unless it is against a patient's intention. (3) Permission of passive euthanasia depends on intention of a patient. In other words, when a patient accepts, a doctor respects the right of self determination of patient and irreversible situation such as brain death happens, treatment stop is permitted. Even a patient who is in the last stage of cancer has a right to die in the dignity and elegance. Solutions for ceasing medical treatment are as follows; First, establishment of 'Bioethics Committee'. Second, setting procedures to empower a court a right to decide whether medical treatment is ceased. Third, setting procedure a government to assist treatment fees. In this paper, direction for social agreement of legal policy regarding the ceasing treatment is provided.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제14권2호
• /
• pp.217-260
• /
• 2013

In connection to the civil liability of the medical malpractice, plaintiff and courts are solving the medical disputes with theory of the liability based on tort law. because contract law does not enact the right of claim of solatium and a plaintiff's lawyer and courts hesitate to use contract law. Medical treatment of doctor is main debt in medical contract and its in-complete performance gives rise to the violations of human's life, body and health. Consequently a breach of medical contract leads to violations of person-al rights. These violations spring from liability of contract as well as tort and damages from them are recognized based on medical contract law. A duty of explanation of doctor is a independent and appendant debt to the treatment debt. However its breach provokes violations of human's life, body and health as well as a right self-determination. Therefore consolation money claim should be recognized. In case of the violation of patient's life, body and health, patient's family al-so can demand consolation money due to the violation of their's own mental pain. However in case of the violation of only patient's self-determination without informed concent, they can not demand it by reason of the violation of patient's self-determination. But by reason of the violation of patient's life, body and health that were recognized by proximate causal relation between violation of duty of explanation and abd execution, they can do.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제22권4호
• /
• pp.89-115
• /
• 2021

우리나라의 의료전달체계는 의료법과 국민건강보험법에 근거하고 있으며, 한정된 의료자원을 효율적으로 운영하기 위하여 질환의 중증도에 따라 의료기관을 이용하도록 구분되어 있다. 상급종합병원에서 이미 중증 질환에 대한 치료가 이루어져 병원급 의료기관으로 전원 또는 자택으로 퇴원이 가능한 경우 의료기관에서 환자에 대하여 의료계약을 해지할 수 있는지가 문제된다. 우리나라 법원의 입장으로는 해당 의료기관에서 더 이상의 입원치료가 불필요한 경우 의료기관의 의료계약 해지권을 인정하는 판결과 그러한 경우에도 의료기관의 의료계약 해지권을 부정하는 판결이 병존하고 있다. 한편 미국 판결 중에는 급성 치료를 담당하는 의료기관에서 입원 중인 환자에게 더 이상 급성 치료가 필요하지 않는 경우에 전문간호시설 등으로 전원을 인정하는 판결들이 있다. 의료자원이 한정되어 있고 의료기관의 계약 해지권이 제한된 취지가 국민의 생명권, 건강권에 대한 위험을 방지하기 위한 목적임을 고려할 때 해당 의료기관에서 치료가 종결되어 환자에게 더 이상 신체적 위해가 없음이 확인된 경우에는 다시 원칙으로 돌아가 의료기관의 계약 해지권을 인정할 필요가 있다.