설명의무와 지도의무 — 설명의무에 관한 최근 판례의 동향 —
The duty to explain and the duty to instruct
0
조회
0
다운로드
31
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The duty to explain(Aufklärungspflicht, informed consent) in medical living relationship has the principle of the rule for duty and the benefit and protection of the law unlike duty in a general legal living relationship. Therefore, the duty to explain a medical procedure without the patient's valid prior consent if the configuration is found to infringe on the patient's self-determination. The Supreme Court's recent judgement has imposed to the doctor a duty, How to care so that the patient can be properly recovered obligations. However, there is some doubt that this judgement of the Supreme Court is equal to the duty of explain. Because this is doctor’s notice about the convalescence methods observed by patient during or after medical treatment, the Supreme Court’s judgement corresponds to medical duty of care, which is required in medical treatment. It is required by the medical duty of care. Patients' self-determination is not a problem for him and patients should be followed for the treatment of diseases. Eventually difference between the two duties appears in the legal structure, the content, the transition period, the legal effect of any violations, the burden of proof. So, the latter must access to a separate description of the two duties and shall be named as 'Duty to instruct'.
Abstract
The duty to explain(Aufklärungspflicht, informed consent) in medical living relationship has the principle of the rule for duty and the benefit and protection of the law unlike duty in a general legal living relationship. Therefore, the duty to explain a medical procedure without the patient's valid prior consent if the configuration is found to infringe on the patient's self-determination. The Supreme Court's recent judgement has imposed to the doctor a duty, How to care so that the patient can be properly recovered obligations. However, there is some doubt that this judgement of the Supreme Court is equal to the duty of explain. Because this is doctor’s notice about the convalescence methods observed by patient during or after medical treatment, the Supreme Court’s judgement corresponds to medical duty of care, which is required in medical treatment. It is required by the medical duty of care. Patients' self-determination is not a problem for him and patients should be followed for the treatment of diseases. Eventually difference between the two duties appears in the legal structure, the content, the transition period, the legal effect of any violations, the burden of proof. So, the latter must access to a separate description of the two duties and shall be named as 'Duty to instruct'.
참고문헌 (38)
- 백경희, "의료분쟁 조정소송 총론" (2011), 육법사
- 최재천, "의료과실과 의료소송" (2001), 육법사
- 김기영, "의약품의 사용설명서와 부작용에 대한 의사의 설명의무- 대법원 2005. 4. 29. 선고 2004다64067 판결을 중심으로 -", 법조, 635, pp.242~280 (2009), 법조협회
- 김나경, "의사의 설명의무의 법적 이해", 한국의료법학회지, 15(1), pp.7~28 (2007), 한국의료법학회
- 김민중, "의사책임 및 의사법의 발전에 관한 최근의 동향", 민사법학, (9.10), pp.325~ (1993)
- 김영환, "의사의 치료행위에 관한 형법적 고찰, In 형사법학의 과제와 전망「계산 성시택교수 화갑기념논문집" (1993)
- 김천수, "의사의 설명의무", 민사법학, (7), pp.224~ (1988)
- 김천수, "진료계약", 민사법학, (15), pp.147~ (1997)
- 박종렬, "의사의 설명의무와 손해배상 범위에 관한 연구", 법학연구, 27, pp.73~101 (2007), 한국법학회
- 박일환, "의사의 설명의무와 환자의 승낙, 의료사고에 관한 제문제", 재판자료, 27, pp.149~ (1985), 법원행정처
- 서광민, "의료과오책임의 법적구성", 민사법학, (8), pp.324~ (1990)
- 서영애, "의사의 지도ㆍ설명의무의 내용과 손해배상책임의 범위", 재판과 판례, 19, pp.443~ (2010), 대구판례연구회
- 석희태, "의사의 설명의무와 환자의 자기결정권", 연세행정논총, 7, pp.293~ (1980)
- 안법영, "산부인과 진료와 의사의 주의의무", 의료법학, (창간), pp.49~ (2000)
- 안법영, "의료사고의 불법행위책임", 법학논집, 33, pp.231~ (1997), 고려대학교 법학연구소
- 안법영, "의료과오소송에서의 성실진료의무와 수인한도", 한국의료법학회지, 17(1), pp.95~120 (2009), 한국의료법학회
- 이경석, "설명의무의 범위에 대한 의학적 고찰- 대법원 1994.4.15, 92다25885 판결을 중심으로-", 한국의료법학회지, 12(2), pp.101~145 (2004), 한국의료법학회
- 이덕환, "의사의 설명의무와 법적 책임론" (1992), 행법사
- 이영환, "환자의 승낙", 부산대학교 법학연구, 27(1), pp.65~ (1984)
- 추호경, "의사의 설명의무위반과 손해배상책임", 법조, 538, pp.5~ (2001)
- 伊澤純, "医療過誤訴訟における医師の說明義務違反(三)", 成城法學, (65) (2001), 成城大學法學會
- Sitzungsbericht I zum 52, "Deutscher Juristentag", Deutschen Juristentag, ~ (1978)
- G. Baumgärtel, "Das Wechselspiel der Beweislastverteilung im Arzthaft- ungsprozeß, Gedächtnisschrift für R", Gedächtnisschrift für R. Brun, 105~ (1980)
- G. Baumgärtel, "Handbuch der Beweislast im Privatrecht, Bd. I, 2", ~ (1991)
- E. Deutsch, "Der Zeitpunkt der ärztlichen Aufklärung und die antezipierte Einwilligung des Patienten", pp.1905~ (1979), NJW
- E. Deutsch, "Neue Aufklärungsprobleme im Arzt", pp.2585~ (1982), NJW
- E. Deutsch, "Das Persönlichkeitsrecht des Patienten", pp.161~ (1992), AcP
- K. Engisch, "Einführung in das juristische Denken, In 법학방법론" (2011), 세창출판사
- A. Laufs, "Arztrecht", ~ (1993)
- B. R. Kern, "Die ärztliche Aufklärungspflicht", ~ (1983)
- B. R. Kern, "Problemstellung", pp.370~ (1995), MedR
- D. Giesen, "Anmerkung", JZ, pp.315~ (1993)
- D. Giesen, "Arzthaftungsrecht", ~ (1995)
- K. Nüßgens, "Zwei Fragen zur zivilrechtlichen Haftung des Arztes", FS für F. Hauß, 287~ (1978)
- E. Steffen, "Neue Entwicklungslinien der BGH-Rechtsprechung zum Arzthaftungsrecht", ~ (1995)
- Gutachten A für den 52, "H. - L. Weyers", Deutschen Juristentag, ~ (1978)
- W. Weißauer, "Grenzen der Aufklärungspflicht, In Die Entwicklung der Arzthaftung", pp.17~ (1997)
- R. Wiethölter, "Arzt und Patient als Rechtsgenossen, In Die Aufklär- ungspflicht des Arztes", pp.71~ (1962)