ABSTRACT
Our country has a dual medical system and as the importance of medical devices in medical practice has grown, oriental medical doctors have sought to use modern medical devices to broaden the scope of their oriental medical practice. Case No. 2012Hun-Ma551·561, which supports the use of modern medical devices by oriental medical doctors contains 3 important errors. First, its finding that a slit lamp microscope automatically provides examination results is erroneous. Second, the Court also mistakenly finds that medical service technologists, etc. Act does not prohibit the usage of devices in the instant case; thus, there is no need for the regulation of said devices. Finally, its finding lacks the proper procedure of considering the opinions of related professional groups. Thus, Case No. 2012Hun-Ma551·561 should not be considered a precedent supporting the use of modern medical devices by the oriental medical practitioners.
Subject(s)
Slit LampABSTRACT
Our country has a dual medical system and as the importance of medical devices in medical practice has grown, oriental medical doctors have sought to use modern medical devices to broaden the scope of their oriental medical practice. Case No. 2012Hun-Ma551·561, which supports the use of modern medical devices by oriental medical doctors contains 3 important errors. First, its finding that a slit lamp microscope automatically provides examination results is erroneous. Second, the Court also mistakenly finds that medical service technologists, etc. Act does not prohibit the usage of devices in the instant case; thus, there is no need for the regulation of said devices. Finally, its finding lacks the proper procedure of considering the opinions of related professional groups. Thus, Case No. 2012Hun-Ma551·561 should not be considered a precedent supporting the use of modern medical devices by the oriental medical practitioners.
ABSTRACT
Medical disputes are rapidly increasing due to patients' rising awareness of their rights and greater access to medical information. Medical negligence means the breach of the duty of care based on the level of medical acts currently carried out in the field of clinical medicine at the time of performing the medical acts. To hold medical personnel liable for breach of the duty of care, the breach of the duty of care in medical acts, generation of damage, and the existence of causation between them should each be proven. The victim bears the burden of proving the elements. Considering the nature of medical acts such as the high degree of professionalism, doctor's discretion and incompleteness of medicine, judicial precedent has established a theory to ease the victim's burden of proof. When a doctor has corrected medical records after acci-dent, this is an act of obstructing verification. The court can use this fact against the obstructing party upon free evaluation of evidence. The liability for explanation is one of the doctor's most important duties. Moreover, doctors should prove that they fulfill the duty of explanation. This paper reviews the civil liability for medical malpractice. Due to the nature of a doctors' work, being charged with the lives, bodies, and health of patients, medical accidents may be inevi-table. Therefore, it is becoming more important for medical personnel to acquire ongoing medi-cal knowledge, keep medical records thoroughly, establish a good rapport with patients and faithfully perform the duty of explanation.