• 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
• /
• 제10권2호
• /
• pp.309-341
• /
• 2009

According to a case of Supreme Court's Sentence No. 2009DA17417 (May 21, 2009), the Supreme Court judges that 'the right to life is the ultimate one of basic human rights stipulated in the Constitution, so it is required to very limitedly and conservatively determine whether to discontinue any medical practice on which patient's life depends directly.' In addition, the Supreme Court admits that 'only if a patient who comes to a fatal phase before death due to attack of any irreversible disease may execute his or her right of self-determination based on human respect and values and human right to pursue happiness, it is permissible to discontinue life-sustaining treatment for him or her, unless there is any special circumstance.' Furthermore, the Supreme Court finds that 'if a patient who is attacked by any irreversible disease informs medical personnel of his or her intention to agree on the refusal or discontinuance of life-sustaining treatment in advance of his or her potential irreversible loss of consciousness, it is justifiable that he or she already executes the right of self-determination according to prior medical instructions, unless there is any special circumstance where it is reasonably concluded that his or her physician is changed after prior medical instructions for him or her.' The Supreme Court also finds that 'if a patient remains at irreversible loss of consciousness without any prior medical instruction, he or she cannot express his or her intentions at all, so it is rational and complying with social norms to admit possibility of estimating his or her own intentions on withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment, provided that such a withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment meets his or her interests in view of his or her usual sense of values or beliefs and it is reasonably concluded that he or she could likely choose to discontinue life-sustaining treatment, even if he or she were given any chance to execute his or her right of self-determination.' This judgment is very significant in a sense that it suggests the reasonable orientation of solutions for issues posed concerning withdrawal of meaningless life-sustaining medical efforts. The issues concerning removal of medical instruments for meaningless life-sustaining treatment and discontinuance of such treatment in regard to medical treatment for terminal cases don't seem to be so much big deal when a patient has clear consciousness enough to express his or her intentions, but it counts that there is any issue regarding a patient who comes to irreversible loss of consciousness and cannot express his or her intentions. Therefore, it is required to develop an institutional instrument that allows relevant authority to estimate the scope of physician's medical duties for terminal patients as well as a patient's intentions to withdraw any meaningless treatment during his or her terminal phase involving loss of consciousness. However, Korean judicial authority has yet to clarify detailed cases where it is permissible to discontinue any life-sustaining treatment for a patient in accordance with his or her right of self-determination. In this context, it is inevitable and challenging to make better legislation to improve relevant systems concerning withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment. The State must assure the human basic rights for its citizens and needs to prepare a system to assure such basic rights through legislative efforts. In this sense, simply entrusting physician, patient or his or her family with any critical issue like the withdrawal of meaningless life-sustaining treatment, even without any reasonable standard established for such entrustment, means the neglect of official duties by the State. Nevertheless, this issue is not a matter that can be resolved simply by legislative efforts. In order for our society to accept judicial system for withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment, it is important to form a social consensus about this issue and also make proactive discussions on it from a variety of standpoints.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제16권2호
• /
• pp.27-53
• /
• 2015

최근, 서울의 성형수술 병원에서 중국 여성 환자가 사망한 원인이 대리 의사의 무단 유령수술 때문이 아니냐는 의혹이 제기되었다. 사고가 발생한 후, 소비자시민모임과 한국환자단체연합회는 지난 3월 유령수술감시운동본부를 발족시켰다. 환자가 알지 못하는 상태에서 환자의 동의 없이 담당 의사를 교체하는 것은 사기행위이자 기본적인 윤리를 저해하는 행위이다. 환자는 1명의 인간으로서 자신을 치료할 의사를 선택할 권리가 있으며, 대리의사를 용인하거나 거부할 수 있는 권한도 환자에게 부여되어야 한다. 환자가 수술을 허락한 사람은 집도의라는 점을 유의해야 한다. 환자는 자신이 계약한 의사로부터 치료를 받을 권리가 있다. 환자를 치료하는 의사는 환자-의사 관계를 창출하는 계약이 허용하는 범위 내에서 자신의 능력껏 수술을 시행할 의무가 있다. 그는 환자로부터 부여 받은 수술 권한을 다른 사람에게 위임할 수 없다. '유령수술은 형법 제257조(상해, 존속상해)가 적용된다. 환자가 알지 못하는 상태에서 환자의 동의 없이 집도의를 교체하는 것은 상해행위이다. 이 부분이 쟁점인데, '유령 수술이 형법 제347조(사기)와도 연관이 있기 때문이다. 환자가 알지 못하는 상태에서 환자의 동의 없이 다른 의사가 수술을 대신하는 것이 사기 행위에 해당하는지 하는 문제도 쟁점이 될 수 있다. 뿐만 아니라, 유령 수술은 의료법 제27조(무면허 의료행위 등 금지), 제22조(진료기록부 등), 제33조(개설 등)와도 관련이 있다. 환자에 대한 의사의 의무는 (1) 수술 동의를 통해 자신에게 주어진 권한의 범위 내에서; (2) 계약 조건에 따라; (3) 수술의 필요성/진행과 관련된 모든 사실을 완전하게 공개하고, (4) 자신의 모든 역량을 발휘하면서 수술에 임하는 것이다.