• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.14 no.2
• /
• 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.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.12 no.1
• /
• 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.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.14 no.1
• /
• 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.

• Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing Administration
• /
• v.10 no.2
• /
• pp.233-241
• /
• 2004

Purpose: The study was done to analyze the concept of accountability. Method: This study adopts a methode of Walker and Avant(1995) for analysis. Result: The defining attributes of accountability are obligation(competency, implementation) of justification, explanation, reporting and disclosure one's action to whom, acception of the evaluation and sanction against results of one's action. The antecedents of accountability are competency, knowledge, skills, values, duty, obligation, authority, empowerment, responsibility, autonomy. The consequences are public safety, improvement of professionalism & healthcare quality, partnership and stress & strain. Conclusions: It is required to develop the ethical concept and theory construction for accountability.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.5 no.2
• /
• pp.294-319
• /
• 2004

Because the treatment of a physician generally pertains to the intrusion into body of a patient, his/her consent is a must in order for such conduct to be justifiable. To ensure effective consent of a patient, the physician should fully inform him/her of kind and details of the disease and way of treatment and risks associated with it. The patient can, then, make a decision whether he/she should accept any treatment or operation, if necessary, on the basis of such information. The obligation of physicians to explain has since long been recognized as important in view of guaranteeing the rights of patients for self-decision and protecting them from arbitrary assessment of physicians for treatment. Progress has been made in this respect even to the extent that physicians treat patients on equal terms and think first of all much of establishing trustworthy relationships with patients. Lots of studies in Korea and foreign countries have tried to explore the issues concerning the obligation of physicians to explain in the meantime but seem to have failed to make concrete and versatile approaches from the standpoint of protecting the rights of patients. Wouldn't it be really possible for patients to perceive their own rights and cope actively with the medical treatments? If physicians have full understanding to the rights of patients, they will be put in a better situation to protect themselves and patients, in turn, can identify their own responsibility correctly, which will eventually contribute to fulfilling the goal of treatment. With this background, the present paper examines briefly the obligations of physicians for explanation based mainly on the preceding theories and judicial precedents in the first place and then deals with the status quo and contents of the German medical laws, with a focus on the treaty of European Law 1997 and its working document on the applications of genetics for health purposes that stipulate the detailed criteria on the medical treatment and rights of patients and Germany's $\ulcorner$Charter of Rights for Patients$\lrcorner$ promulgated in 2003.

• Journal of Korean language education
• /
• v.25 no.1
• /
• pp.1-27
• /
• 2014

This study investigates how common English hedge expressions such as 'I think' and 'I guess' appear in Korean, with the aim of providing explicit explanation for English-speaking leaners of Korean. Based on a contrastive analysis of spoken English and Korean corpus, this study argues three points: Firstly, 'I guess' appears with a wider variety of modalities in Korean than 'I think'. Secondly, this study has found that Korean textbooks contain inappropriate use of registers regarding the English translations of '-geot -gat-': although these markers are used in spoken Korean, they were translated into written English. Therefore, this study suggests that '-geot -gat-' be translated into 'I think' in spoken English, and into 'it seems' in the case of written English and narratives. Lastly, the contrastive analysis has shown that when 'I think' is used with deontic modalities such as 'I think I have to', Korean use '-a-ya-get-': the use of hedge marker 'I think' with 'I have to', which shows obligation or speaker's volition turns the deontic modalities into expressions of speaker's opinion.

• Journal of the Korean Home Economics Association
• /
• v.42 no.12 s.202
• /
• pp.123-140
• /
• 2004

The purpose of this study was to explore the unfairness of adhesion contracts for internet contents service. The internet contents were classified into six types of avatar, learning, download, e-book and movie internet sites. The adhesion contracts of internet contents service were collected in 60 internet sites. The unfairness of the adhesion contract was reviewed under the adhesion contract regulation act. The major results were as follows. First, the obligation of clear statement, explanation, and delivery was not observed completely. Second, many articles of adhesion contract were unfair and they especially violated articles 7 and 9. Therefore, the standard adhesion contract system for internet content service should be enforced and self-regulation of information service providers is needed.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.35 no.2
• /
• pp.113-136
• /
• 2020

Worldwide, so-called 'over-booking' of Air Carriers is established in practice. Although not invalid, despite their current contracts, passengers can be refused boarding, which can hinder travel planning. The Korean Supreme Court ruled that an airline carrier who refused to board a passenger due to over-booking was liable for compensation under the "Nonperformance of obligation". But what the court should be thinking about is when the benefit(transport) have been disabled. Thereforeit may be considered that the impossibility of benefit (Transport) due to the rejection of boarding caused by 'Over-booking' may be not the 'subsequent impossibility', but not the 'initialimpossibility '. The legal relationship due to initial impossibility is nullity (imposibilium nulla est obligation). When benefits are initial impossibile, our civil code recognizes liability for damages in accordance with the law of "Culpa in Contrahendo", not "nonperformance of obligation". On this reason, the conclusion that the consumer will be compensated for the loss of boarding due to overbooking by the Air Carrier is the same, but there is a need to review the legal basis for the responsibility from the other side. However, it doesn't matter whether it is non-performance or Culpa in Contrahendo. Rather, the recognition of this compensation is likely to cause confusion due to unstable contractual relationships between both parties. Even for practices permitted by Air Carriers, modifications to current customary overbooking that consumers must accept unconditionally are necessary. At the same time, if Air Carriers continue to be held liable for non-performance of obligations due to overselling tickets, it can be fatal to the airline business environment that requires overbooking for stable profit margins. Therefore, it would be an appropriate measure for both Air Carriers and passengers if the Air Carrier were to be given a clearer obligation to explain (to the consumer) and, at the same time, if the explanation obligation is fulfilled, the Air Carrier would no longer be forced to take responsibility for overbooking.

• Research in Community and Public Health Nursing
• /
• v.9 no.2
• /
• pp.303-312
• /
• 1998

The purpose of this study was to survey the knowledge level, attitude and practice of nurses toward their work. The subjects of the study were composed of 98 nurses from 3 general hospitals, 1 oriental medical hospital, 2 health centers and several community health posts and schools. Data were collected from May to October, 1998. In data analysis, an SPSS PC program was utilized for descriptions. 1) 16 nurses (16.3%) experienced medical accidents on the 7 nurses(7.1%) 1 time, 6 nurses (6.1%) 2 times, and 3 nurses(3.1%) 3 times. 2) Concerning knowledge of their legal obligations ; the prohibition of telling secrets was .89, the prohibition of reading medical records was .58, the keeping of medical records was 1.0 and the teaching of recuperation was. 79. The total mean score was. 86. Concerning attitude and practice; the prohibition of telling secrets was 81.6%, 63.3%. The prohibition of reading medical records was 61.2%, 60.2%. The keeping of medical records was 98%, 98%. The explanation for treatment, care and test was 91.8%, 66.3%. The teaching for recuperation was 63.3%, 63.3%. 3) Knowledge of their legal responsibilities; 29. 6% of the subjects thought that they should report a medical accident to their headnurse, but 75.5% of the subjects actually reported to the headnurse. 39.8% of the subjects thought that nurses were liable for the faults of nursing aides. The total mean score was .45. 46% of the subjects asked a senior staff's advide on difficult affairs. Nurses obeyed legal obligations when concern ing the protection of a client, but were passive when concerning self protection. Also, headnurses were required as adviser, guide and advocate.

• Health Policy and Management
• /
• v.22 no.3
• /
• pp.315-346
• /
• 2012

The legal relationship between patient and physician is legally equal relationship. But, in times past, patients be compelled to sign an unequal contract, substantially. Because of the imbalance between supply and demand in the health care market. Today, the law of supply and demand in the health care market is running well. And as the cognition of citizens' rights grows, the relationship between patient and physician can also get a lot of changes. Patients have the right to know the information about medical care, and to decide whether or not to get treatment including invasions against their own bodies. In other words, Doctors have an obligation to explain to their patients. If doctors did not provide patients sufficient explanation or information, it violates the right of patients. This is a tort, or a breach of contract. To improve the remedy for violation of patient's right, patient is able to be protected by status as consumer. If patient is a kind of consumer in terms of medical consumption, he/she as consumer can enjoy supplementally the consumer's right. The patient as a consumer can exercise now a consumer's right as a constitutional right. In addition, with respect to consumer's rights, Framework Act on Consumers was enacted. This Act is based on constitutional provisions of Article 124 and the Act can be seen as a law that embodies consumer right because the provision of the constitutional law delegates specific contents. In the health care field, patients need to win recognition the statue of the consumer to hold the sovereignty of the consumer. In particular, if patients are consumers, they may be able to make good use of the quickly and efficiently collective dispute resolution and association lawsuit to rescue their damage, the Alternative Dispute Resolution(ADR) of Framework Act on Consumers.