연구결과 소개 : 형사절차상 유전자 정보의 관리 및 활용방안

황만성 한국형사정책연구원 2007 형사정책연구소식 Vol.102 No.-

유령수술행위의 형사책임 - 미용성형수술을 중심으로 -

황만성 대한의료법학회 2015 의료법학 Vol.16 No.2

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. Recently, a plastic surgery hospital in Seoul, has been raided following suspicions that ghost surgery was performed by an unauthorized substitute surgeon on a chinese woman who lapsed into a death. Following the incident, an organization to eradicate ghost surgery was created in March by Consumers Korea, founded to protect consumer rights, and the Korea Alliance of Patients Organization. The organization has received reports of illegal medical practices. To substitute another physician without the patient's consent and without his knowledge of the substitution is fraud and deceit and a violation of a basic ethical concept. The patient as a human being is entitled to choose his own physician and he should be permitted to acquiesce in or refuse to accept the substitution. It should be noted that it is the operating surgeon to whom the patient grants his consent to perform the operation. The patient is entitled to the services of the particular surgeon with whom he contracts. The surgeon, in accepting the patient, obligates himself to utilize his personal talents in the performance of the operation to the extent required by the agreement creating the physician-patient relationship. He cannot properly delegate to another the duties which the patient authorizes him to perform personally. ‘Ghost surgery’ comes under Article 257(Inflicting Bodily Injury on Other or on Lineal Ascendant) of the Criminal Code. Substitution another physician without the patient's consent and without his knowledge of the substitution shall be performed Inflicting Bodily Injury. This is a controversial issue that‘ghost surgery’comes under Article 347(Fraud) of the Criminal Code. It maybe controversial that operation substituted by another physician without the patient's consent and without his knowledge of the substitution becomes the component of Fraud. Also, Ghost surgery’comes under Article 27 (Prohibition of Unlicensed Medical Practice, etc.), Article 22 (Medical Records, etc.), Article 33 (Establishment) of the Medical Service Act. The surgeon's obligation to the patient requires him to perform the surgical operation: (1) within the scope of authority granted him by the consent to the operation; (2) in accordance with the terms of the contractual relationship; (3) with complete disclosure of all facts relevant to the need and the performance of the operation; and (4) to utilize his best skill in performing the operation.

환자의 전원(轉院)에 있어서의 의료과실

황만성 한국형사판례연구회 2011 刑事判例硏究 Vol.19 No.-

In modern medical practice it is not uncommon for a patient to be treated independently by several physicians at various stages. A situation may arise in which the combined negligence of different physicians-who are not in partnership or otherwise vicariously liable for each other’s acts-results in one indivisible injury. These physicians, although acting independently of each other, have sometimes been sued as joint tortfeasors, each allegedly jointly and severally liable to the patient for the entire injury.There is a principle that restrict or exclude criminal negligence in corporative division of labor. It is so called as ‘Principle of Trust’. As this principle, the physician who trust the other physician acts without negligence in the other physician’s division of labor is not liable. There is some cases that considered ‘Principle of Trust’ in judging criminal negligence in Korea. We will review two remarkable cases. The first case(2009do7070) is that the physician who operated cesarean delivery and transfered the patient to the upper hospital is liable for negligence of preparing transfusion and explaining to the physician of upper hospital. The other case is 2008na46021, the fact may be summarized as follows. The patient who was presumed having breast cancer through biopsy of ‘Y hospital’, she transferred hospital and had operation to remove her breast in ‘S hospital’. After operation, it is confirmed that there is no cancer cell in her breast. In fact, the cells for biopsy was changed with another women’s at the clinical laboratory of ‘Y hospital’. This case is still remained in court.

연구결과 소개 : 형사절차상 성범죄 피해아동 보호방안

황만성 한국형사정책연구원 2005 형사정책연구소식 Vol.92 No.-

무면허 의료행위에 있어서의 의료행위의 개념

황만성 한국형사판례연구회 2006 刑事判例硏究 Vol.14 No.-

낙태죄 헌법불합치결정에 따른 개선입법에 관한 고찰

황만성 원광대학교 법학연구소 2019 의생명과학과 법 Vol.22 No.-

Recently, the Constitutional Court has decided to discuss the constitutional disagreement regarding the abortion crime and to discuss the scope of the decision and the future legislation. Various measures to faithfully protect the right of self-determination of pregnant women on abortion, and the necessity of legislation on the specific contents of respect for the fetal life right and protection obligations are also discussed. The recognition of the speed of the decision implies that the criminal law limits the right of self-determination of pregnant women beyond the minimum necessary for the provision of a self-abortion guilt, and that the fetus should be granted the right to life recognized by all human beings. According to Constitutional Court, there is also an obligation to protect the life of the fetus. In addition to the guarantee of self-determination rights and the protection of the fetus's life, the legislator's right to form legislation is recognized, specifically the abortion decision period, the reason for abortion, the relationship between the decision period and the reason Whether it is set or not. The content of such legislative discretion may be justified to the extent that it does not harm the essential part of the binding force. 최근 헌법재판소의 낙태죄에 대한 헌법불합치결정을 둘러싸고 그 결정의 효력범위 및 향후 입법내용에 논의가 활발하다. 낙태에 관한 임신여성의 자기결정권을 충실히 보호하기 위한 다양한 방안과 태아 생명권 존중과 보호의무의 구체적 내용의 입법 필요성에 관한 논의도 다양하게 이루어지고 있다. 이는 현행법상 형법상의 낙태죄 처벌을 통한 것 이외에는 직접적인 태아보호의 입법이 이루어지지 않고 있는 상황에서 앞으로 국가의 태아생명권 보호의무와 관련하여 어떠한 입법이 이루어져야 할지 논의는 중요한 의미를 가진다고 할 것이다. 헌법재판소 결정의 법정의견이라고 할 수 있는 7인의 재판관이 의견을 같이하는 부분만이 이 사건 결정의 기속력이 인정되는 객관적 범위라고 할 수 있으며, 그 기속력이 인정되는 것은 형법상 자기낙태죄 조항이 필요한 최소한의 정도를 넘어 임신한 여성의 자기결정권을 제한한다는 것과 태아에게도 모든 인간에게 인정되는 생명에 대한 권리가 인정되어야 하며 이에 따라 국가는 헌법 제10조 제2문에 따라 태아의 생명을 보호할 의무가 있다는 것이다. 기속력이 인정되는 임신한 여성의 자기결정권의 보장, 태아의 생명보호의무 이외에는 입법자에 의한 입법형성권을 인정하고 있는데, 구체적으로는 낙태결정가능기간, 낙태허용사유, 결정기간과 허용사유와의 견련관계 설정 여부 등이 이에 해당한다. 이러한 입법재량에 속하는 사항에 대하여 기속력이 인정되는 본질적 부분을 해치지 않는 범위에서 그 내용이 정당화될 수 있다. 임신한 여성의 자기결정권이 보장될 수 있는 낙태의 결정가능기간은 임신 14주~22주의 기간 중의 어느 시점으로 정하는 것, 상담요건이나 숙려기간 등과 같은 일정한 절차적 요건이 임신여성의 자기결정권 행사에 어떤 실질적인 장애를 초래하지 않도록 하는 것이 입법재량이 허용된 개선입법의무를 위반하지 않는 것이라고 할 것이다. 또한 태아의 생명보호의 필요성과 국가의 의무를 충실히 하여 여성의 건강, 모성보호, 가족의 구성 등의 헌법적 가치를 구현하기 위한 입법이 필요하다고 할 것이다.

생명윤리에 관한 법규범력 확보와 그 한계

황만성 원광대학교 법학연구소 2011 의생명과학과 법 Vol.6 No.-

Debate over the relationship of law and bioethics is growing - what the relationship has been and what it should be in the future. While someone has praised law and rights-talk for creating modern bioethics, others has instead blamed law for hijacking bioethics and stunting moral reflection. Indeed, as modern bioethics approaches the 40-year mark, historians of bioethics are presenting divergent accounts. In one accoun,t bioethics largely grew out of philosophy and theology, not law. In another account, law has deeply shaped bioethics from the start, forging its central commitment to the rights of patients and research subjects and the field's imposition of broad fiduciary responsibilities on health care professionals and researchers. In addition to debating how to properly describe law's historical relationship to bioethics, commentators have argued over whether law's influence in bioethics is now good or bad. The issues of bioethics step into the realm of law suddenly through the so-called Shinchon Sevrance Hospital Case. The Case opened the discourse of bioethical issues in earnest. Now issues of bioethics are switching from private, ethical problems to public, legal problems. In case of the realization of dispute, the intervention of court is unavoidable, but it does not produce good results. So it is necessary to recognize the limitations of legal regulation as well as it's necessity. In recent years, we learned that scientists have created social risks forcing us to think through these issues very carefully. Most of bioethical issues are at the leading edge of a series of moral hazards. Sometimes we may face that it is needed to prevent some wrong-doing before becoming huge criminal behaviour. Certain criminal policy must be designed to analyse the science-related crimes.

형사정책 주요동향 : 일본 『법무총합연구소(法務總合硏究所)』소개

황만성,이천현 한국형사정책연구원 2005 형사정책연구소식 Vol.87 No.-

생명윤리에 관한 법규범력 확보와 그 한계

황만성 원광대학교 법학연구소 2011 의생명과학과 법 Vol.6 No.-

Debate over the relationship of law and bioethics is growing - what the relationship has been and what it should be in the future. While someone has praised law and rights-talk for creating modern bioethics, others has instead blamed law for hijacking bioethics and stunting moral reflection. Indeed, as modern bioethics approaches the 40-year mark, historians of bioethics are presenting divergent accounts. In one accoun,t bioethics largely grew out of philosophy and theology, not law. In another account, law has deeply shaped bioethics from the start, forging its central commitment to the rights of patients and research subjects and the field's imposition of broad fiduciary responsibilities on health care professionals and researchers. In addition to debating how to properly describe law's historical relationship to bioethics, commentators have argued over whether law's influence in bioethics is now good or bad. The issues of bioethics step into the realm of law suddenly through the so-called Shinchon Sevrance Hospital Case. The Case opened the discourse of bioethical issues in earnest. Now issues of bioethics are switching from private, ethical problems to public, legal problems. In case of the realization of dispute, the intervention of court is unavoidable, but it does not produce good results. So it is necessary to recognize the limitations of legal regulation as well as it's necessity. In recent years, we learned that scientists have created social risks forcing us to think through these issues very carefully. Most of bioethical issues are at the leading edge of a series of moral hazards. Sometimes we may face that it is needed to prevent some wrong-doing before becoming huge criminal behaviour. Certain criminal policy must be designed to analyse the science-related crimes.

국민건강보험과 관련한 보험범죄의 문제점과 대책

황만성 대한의료법학회 2004 의료법학 Vol.5 No.1