의료분쟁의 합리적 해결을 위한 연구

정영수 한국민사소송법학회 2010 民事訴訟 : 韓國民事訴訟法學會誌 Vol.14 No.2

The medical dispute has been social issue in our country. The medical dispute could be solved by the judgement of a court as other kinds of disputes. But a solution by the judgement of a court might cause the cost disadvantage to the patient. Besides, it has a bad effect on confidence between the patient and physician. So it needs the alternative dispute resolution(ADR) for a rational solution of the medical dispute. We have introduced various out of court dispute settlement mechanisms during the last 15 years, and to no vail, and recently proposed Medical Disputes Adjustment Act. This paper focuses on an effective approach to dealing with the medical dispute, and describes out of court medical malpractice litigation systems in Japan, Germany and US, for example, binding arbitration, screening panel and mediation in US. And it is important that why patients tend to sue medical providers and how lack of communicated information between physicians and patients. Allowing physicians to explain what happened and apologize or express regret and creating opportunity for the rebuilding of patient-physician relationships may lead to prevention of the medical litigation. The medical dispute has been social issue in our country. The medical dispute could be solved by the judgement of a court as other kinds of disputes. But a solution by the judgement of a court might cause the cost disadvantage to the patient. Besides, it has a bad effect on confidence between the patient and physician. So it needs the alternative dispute resolution(ADR) for a rational solution of the medical dispute. We have introduced various out of court dispute settlement mechanisms during the last 15 years, and to no vail, and recently proposed Medical Disputes Adjustment Act. This paper focuses on an effective approach to dealing with the medical dispute, and describes out of court medical malpractice litigation systems in Japan, Germany and US, for example, binding arbitration, screening panel and mediation in US. And it is important that why patients tend to sue medical providers and how lack of communicated information between physicians and patients. Allowing physicians to explain what happened and apologize or express regret and creating opportunity for the rebuilding of patient-physician relationships may lead to prevention of the medical litigation.

의료분쟁조정절차의 개시요건에 관한 연구

고형석(Ko Hyoung Suk) 원광대학교 법학연구소(의생명과학법센터) 2018 의생명과학과 법 Vol.19 No.-

의료분야에서 발생하는 분쟁을 효과적으로 해결하기 위해 의료분쟁조정법이 제정되었다. 그러나 다른 분쟁조정과 달리 의료분쟁조정은 일방의 신청만으로 개시되는 것이 아닌 피신청인의 동의가 있어야만 개시된다. 이러한 문제점을 해결하고자 2016년에 동법을 개정하여 중대의료분쟁에 한해 일방의 신청만으로 의료분쟁조정은 개시하도록 규정하였다. 그러나 그 이외의 의료분쟁에 대해서는 여전히 피신청인의 동의가 있어야 분쟁조정이 개시된다. 그 정당성에 대해 의료계에서는 원활한 진료보장, 조정신청의 남용 등을 이유로 제시하고 있다. 그러나 동법의 입법취지는 의료라는 전문분야에서 발생한 분쟁을 비전문가인 환자측에서 효과적으로 해결할 수 있도록 함이다. 그럼에도 불구하고 피신청인의 동의를 조정절차의 개시요건으로 정한 점은 의료분쟁의 효과적 해결을 방해하는 것을 합법화하는 것이기 때문에 동법의 입법목적과 일치하지 않는다. 또한 다른 분쟁조정제도에 있어서 피신청인의 동의를 조정절차의 개시요건으로 정하고 있지 않음에 비추어 보더라도 합리적 타당성은 존재하지 않다. 특히, 동일한 의료분쟁을 조정대상으로 하는 소비자분쟁조정의 경우에 일방의 신청만으로 조정절차가 개시된다는 점을 감안한다면 의료분쟁조정위원회의 조정개시요건은 더욱 타당성을 결여하며, 일반의료분쟁에 있어서 한국의료분쟁조정중재원은 조정의 역할을 담당하는 것이 아닌 감정기관으로 전락하게 된다. 이는 의료분쟁이라는 전문분야에서 발생한 분쟁을 전문기관에서 처리하도록 하기 위해 의료분쟁조정법이 제정되었다는 점과 상치한다. 따라서 의료분쟁조정법상 분쟁조정의 개시에 있어서 피신청인의 동의 요건은 삭제할 필요가 있다. 물론 의료계에서 주장하는 일부의 의견은 경청할 필요가 있다. 특히, 감정부의 구성에 있어서 의료인의 비중이 낮다는 점과 한국의료분쟁조정중재원의 조사 등에 대해 협조하지 않았다는 것을 이유로 과태료를 부과하는 점은 의료분쟁조정제도와 일치하지 않으며, 이러한 독소 조항으로 인해 의료인이 의료분쟁조정을 회피하는 주된 이유라는 점을 감안하여 조속한 개정이 필요하다. The Act on Remedies for Injuries from Medical Malpractice and Mediation of Medical Disputes has been enacted to effectively resolve disputes in the medical field. However, unlike other dispute settlements, medical dispute mediation procedure shall be initiated only with the consent of the Respondent, not by a single application. In order to solve these problems, this law was amended in 2016, and medical dispute mediation was set to be initiated only by one-sided application for major medical disputes. However, other medical disputes still require the consent of the Respondent to initiate dispute settlement. The purpose of the legislation is to ensure that disputes in the medical field can be effectively resolved by the untrained patient. Nonetheless, the fact that the Respondent’s consent was established as a requirement for the initiation of the mediation procedure is not consistent with the legislative purpose of the Act, since it would legitimize interfering with the effective settlement of medical disputes. In addition, there is no reasonable justification in light of the fact that the dispute mediation systems do not require the consent of the Respondent to be initiated by the Complainant. In particular, in the case of a consumer dispute mediation that is subject to the same medical dispute, mediation procedure will be initiated only with application of a party. Therefore, a consent requirement of the Respondent is required to be deleted in commencement conditions of medical dispute mediation procedures under the Act on Remedies for Injuries from Medical Malpractice and Mediation of Medical Disputes.

의료분쟁조정법의 주요 쟁점과 평가

윤석찬(Yoon, Seok-chan) 한국재산법학회 2012 재산법연구 Vol.29 No.3

2012년 4월 8일부로 시행되는 의료분쟁조정법은 이미 1988년 대한의사협회가 의료사고처리특례법의 제정을 건의하면서부터 그 논의가 시작되었다. 동법은 의료사고로 인한 분쟁의 조정절차와 손해의 배상 및 보상 등에 관한 사항을 규정함으로써 국민의 생명, 신체 및 재산상의 피해를 신속하고 공정하게 구제하고 보건의료인 등의 안정적인 진료환경을 조성함에 그 목적이 있다. 지금까지 살펴본 의료분쟁조정법의 핵심적 내용은 ⅰ) 한국의료분쟁조정중재원의 설립이다. 동 기관은 의료분쟁의 조정과 중재, 손해액 산정, 의료사고의 감정, 그리고 손해배상금 대불업무, ⅱ) 무과실 의료사고 보상제도, ⅲ) 형사처벌 특례, ⅳ) 환자에게 임의적 조정전치주의를 채택하여 조정선택의 자율적 결정권이 부여되어 조정절차를 선택하지 않은 경우에는 헌법상의 재판받을 권리를 갖는 점, ⅴ) 최대 3개월의 조정기간 도입 등이다. 이러한 쟁점들에 관하여 국회, 정부, 법조계, 의료계, 시민단체사이에 많은 이견과 대립이 양산되었다. 그러나 의료분쟁조정법 및 시행령, 시행규칙의 제정은 실로 20여년가 넘게 진행되어온 사회적 논의를 일단락 지었다는 점, 지금까지는 소송만이 능사였으나 조정을 통한 분쟁해결의 제도화로 의료분쟁이 3개월이면 해결가능하다는 점, 의료소송에서 환경측이 부담해야 할 의료과오의 입증책임을 조정위원회가 부담한다는 점 등에서 나름대로 의의가 있다고 보여 진다. 다만 장기적 안목에서 바라보면 소송에서의 분쟁해결과 달리 의료분쟁조정법상의 조정이나 중재를 통한 분쟁해결의 정당성과 유용성의 확보는 의료분쟁을 전문적으로 다룰 수 있는 조정자 내지 중재자가 의료법 전공분야의 학자를 중심으로 하여 체계적이고 제도적으로 관리되고 이들이 분쟁조정에 적극적으로 개입해야 할 것이다. All of the available data indicate that medical disputes have significantly increased during the decades. And the aspects of conflict on medical disputes are getting more extreme. As with the development of medical technology, the increasing awareness of human rights, and the enlargement of National Health Insurance, the medical malpractice litigation are rapidly increasing in these decades. In addition, another reason of increasing malpractice is the absence of medical dispute arbitration lawsystem. Recently, on April, 2012, the Medical Dispute Arbitration Law was enacted. The purpose of the law is to relieve damages caused by medical malpractice quickly and fairly. It pursues to create stable circumstances in medical service. The enactment of the law means to change how people resolve dispute for medical malpractice. The way of dispute resolution in medical malpractice by this law is useful for the disputants. The proof of negligence and causation is done by that department of the medical dispute arbitration. Therefore, patient need not prove the negligence of a doctor and causation on medical malpractice any more. Also, the Medical Dispute Arbitration Law made for arbitration of medical disputes between the parties will have to make an institutional system for the parties understood and accepted easily. This paper has presented a brief history of the legislation process and identified major obstacles encountered during the process. First, introduction of a system of the medical dispute arbitration Law. Second, Issues related with the organization of committee on medical disputes coordination. Last, the evaluation on the medical dispute arbitration law.

의료기기분쟁과 분쟁조정제도 ― 독일의 법적 현황을 참고하여 ―

양천수 ( Chun-soo Yang ),우세나 ( Se-na Woo ) 안암법학회 2021 안암 법학 Vol.- No.62

최근 의료기기로 인한 인권침해 등과 같은 의료기기분쟁이 증가하면서 「의료기기법」개정이 검토된다. 오늘날 의료행위에서 의료기기가 차지하는 비중이 높아지면서 의료기기의 결함 문제 및 이로 인해 발생하는 분쟁을 해결하는 것이 중요한 이슈가 된다. 이에 의료기기의 결함으로 발생하는 피해로부터 환자나 이용자를 적절하게 보호할 수 있는 법제를 구축할 필요가 있다. 「의료기기법」개정안은 이러한 문제의식을 고려한 것으로 평가된다. 개정안은 크게 두 가지를 제시한다. 첫째는 제조자의 책임보험 가입을 의무화하는 것이다. 둘째는 분쟁조정제도를 설치하는 것이다. 그러면 이러한 개정안은 타당한가? 이를 검토하기 위해 이 글은 비교법 방법을 원용한다. 특히 이 글은 우리 법체계에 많은 영향을 미친 독일의 법제도, 그중에서도 의료기기의 분쟁조정을 어떻게 규율하는지를 검토한다. 이를 통해 이 글은 다음과 같은 시사점을 획득하였다. 첫째, 독일의료기기법은 의료기기분쟁을 정면에서 규율하는 법적ㆍ제도적 장치는 담고 있지 않다. 둘째, 독일은 우리처럼 의료분쟁을 전담하는 의료분쟁조정법을 갖고 있지 않다. 의료분쟁에 대한 ADR은 민간 주도로 구축되어 있다. 의료조정원이나 감정위원회가 그것이다. 셋째, 의료조정원이나 감정위원회에 대해서는 기본원칙으로 자발성과 비구속성이 적용된다. 넷째, 의료기기분쟁에 대한 ADR로는 독일 조정법에 따른 조정을 언급할 수 있다. 독일 조정법에 의한 조정 역시 철저하게 자율적으로 진행된다. 이 글은 이러한 시사점을 바탕으로 하여 우리의 「의료기기법」개정안을 다음과 같이 평가한다. 우선 책임보험 가입을 의무화하는 개정안은 긍정적으로 평가할 수 있다. 그러나 행정형 분쟁조정제도를 신설하는 것에는 의문을 제기한다. 행정형 분쟁조정제도는 조정의 본래적 취지와 맞지 않는 것으로 보이기 때문이다. 특히 조정을 통해 도출한 합의에 기판력에 준하는 강력한 법적 구속력을 부여하는 것은 문제로 보인다. 물론 그렇다고 해서 법적 구속력을 전적으로 부여하지 않는 것도 바람직하지는 않다. 조정으로 도출한 합의에는 조정제도의 효율성을 제고할 수 있도록 집행력 정도의 법적 구속력을 인정하는 게 적절해 보인다. 아울러 이 글은 법정책적으로는 다음과 같은 방안도 제안한다. 현재 운용 중인 의료분쟁조정제도가 관할하는 대상에 의료기기분쟁을 추가하는 방안이 그것이다. Recently, as medical device disputes such as human rights violations due to medical devices increase, the revision of the Korean 「Medical Devices Act」is being reviewed. As the proportion of medical devices in medical practice today increases, resolving the problem of defects in medical devices and its disputes becomes an important issue. Accordingly, it is necessary to establish a legal system that can adequately protect patients and users from damage caused by defects in medical devices. The amendment to the Korean 「Medical Devices Act」is evaluated to take into account this awareness. The amendment proposes two main things. The first is to oblige the manufacturers of medical devices to buy a liability insurance. The second is to establish a dispute mediation system for the medical device disputes. So, is this amendment valid? To review that question, this article uses the comparative law method. In particular, this article examines the legal system and situation of Germany, which has had a great influence on Korean legal systems, especially how it regulates dispute settlement of medical devices. Through those, this article has obtained the following implications. First, the German 「Medical Devices Act」does not contain legal and institutional mechanisms that govern medical device disputes. Second, German legal systems do not have a medical dispute mediation law dedicated to medical disputes like ours. The ADR on medical disputes is established by the private sector. The ‘Schlichtungsstelle’ or ‘Gutachterkommssion’ are those. Third, ‘Freiwilligkeit’ and ‘Unverbindlichkeit’ are applied as basic principles to the ‘Schlichtungsstelle’ and ‘Gutachterkommssion’. Fourth, the ADR for medical device disputes can refer to the mediation system according to the German mediation law. The mediation under the German mediation law is also ruled by the principle of autonomy. Based on these implications, this article evaluates the amendment of the Korean 「Medical Devices Ac t」as follows. First of all, the amendment which mandates buying a liability insurance can be evaluated positively. However, the establishment of an administrative dispute mediation system should meet questions. This is because the administrative dispute mediation system does not seem to fit the original purpose of the mediation system. In particular, it seems to be a problem to impart a strong legal binding power to agreements reached through a mediation. Of course, the article does not argue that the agreements should have no legal binding power. Instead, it seems appropriate for the author to recognize the legal binding power as executive power to improve the efficiency of the mediation system in agreements reached through a mediation. In addition, this article proposes the following measures for legal policy. This is a propose to add medical device disputes to the subject under the jurisdiction of the medical dispute mediation system currently in operation in Korea.

의료사고와 의료분쟁에 대한 의료이용자들의 의식 조사

이현실 ( Hyun Sill Rhee ),이준협 ( Jun Hyup Lee ),임국환 ( Kook Hwan Rhim ),최만규 ( Man Kyu Choi ) 한국병원경영학회 2006 병원경영학회지 Vol.11 No.1

According to the available data, in these days, the number of medical accidents and disputes have significantly increased since 1990 in Korea. From this aspect, a variety of approaches and efforts to solve these problems is needed before it is too late. This study intended to identify the thoughts of patients who are directly connected with medical accidents and disputes and then to consider reasonable settlement methods of the increasing disputes. For achieving the purpose of this study, the self-administered questionnaire was conducted with 450 out-patients who visited three university hospitals, five small and medium-sized hospitals, and ten clinics in Seoul from June 13 to 17, 2005. Incomplete questionnaires were omitted and 410 respondents(91%) were included for the analysis of this study. Each section of the survey was composed of six categories such as the recognition of malpractice, a compensation system about no-fault medical accidents, the recognition of the judgement of medical accidents in court, reasonable settlement of medical accidents, reasons of lawsuit, and the need of the medical dispute settlement organization. The major results of this study were as follows. First, more than half of the respondents, 51.9 percent, worry about malpractice. And many respondents think malpractice causes their symptoms to persist or become worse, and also some respondents think that the doctor`s prescription changed too frequently. Second, as for a compensation system about no-fault medical accident, 55.7 percent of the respondents insist that a proper compensation for suffering patients or their families should be provided. And also as for the responsibility of compensation, respondents think joint compensation of both the medical institution and the government is needed foremost, followed by the medical insurance company and finally by the medical institution. The government as well as the related institutions should take responsibility for malpractice accidents for which the doctor is not responsible. Third, as for the acknowledgment of medical accident judgements by the court, 32.8 percent of respondents think that it is best to compromise with a medical institution, followed by lawsuit(26.2%), the assistance of civil organization(23.2%), and a powerful physical protest(7.6%). Fourth, as for the lawsuit of medical accidents, 62.9 percent of respondents think that patients and their families would be in a disadvantageous position in relation to medical institutions and doctors mentioning the lack of professional medical and lawful knowledge, experience and know-how as the reason. So many people have given up appeals owing to the difficulties involved in defending themselves through evidence. Fifth, about a half share of the respondents indicated that the medical institution`s neglect of the responsibility of medical accidents is one of the most important reasons of lawsuit. And next respondents mentioned the lack of the medical dispute settlement organization and a general distrust of medical institutions and doctors. Sixth, a majority of respondents consented to the introduction of the need of the medical dispute settlement organization, And about a half of the respondents mentioned a readiness to accept the mediation of the organization, but the rest did not express a clear opinion. It seems that conflict among the parties concerned have existed in relation to the medical dispute settlement organization and related legislation for many years. But as this study has shown, the needs of the medical dispute settlement organization is in desperate demand. Therefore, more negotiation efforts from all interest groups should be considered for the birth of the medical dispute settlement organization and related legislation.

사례연구 : 사례연구를 통한 소송이외의 의료분쟁 해결방안의 검토와 개선방안

강의성 ( Eui Sung Kang ),김장묵 ( Jang Mook Kim ),성동효 ( Dong Hyo Sung ),목남희 ( Nam Hee Mok ) 한국병원경영학회 2013 병원경영학회지 Vol.18 No.3

Medical litigation, as a method of resolving medical disputes, has been a huge burden on both the patient and medical institution as it is both costly and time-consuming. The Korea Medical Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Agency has created a dispute mediation process as a method of alternative dispute resolution(ADR). Being in its early stage of implementation, there are still areas requiring improvement as some functions overlap with the Korea Consumer Agency`s damage redress and mediation process. This study examines the problems of existing practices in medical litigation while reviewing the mediation process of the two agencies from legal/administrative aspects, and provides an in-depth analysis of the situation through case studies and interviews. While the Korea Medical Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Agency offers many advantages in resolving medical disputes, there must be a distinct division of roles and mutual cooperation with the Korea Consumer Agency. Considering the increasing amount of compensation in medical disputes, medical professionals are being requested to carry medical malpractice insurance. However, this has yet to become a general trend in the medical field despite the growing social demand. As such, the coverage of medical malpractice insurance should be expanded to prevent medical accidents from escalating into medical disputes, thus acting as a social safety net. This study seeks to examine the methods of medical dispute resolution and to allow institutional provisions to reduce the social costs arising from such disputes.

한국의 의료사고와 피해구제

최행식 원광대학교 법학연구소 2009 의생명과학과 법 Vol.2 No.-

In the 1980s, not only medical accident but also medical disputes became social problems in the nation, and from the year of 1988 medical circles as well as the government started to discuss enactment of laws of dispute settlement in medical malpractice. The purpose of enactment of laws of dispute settlement in medical malpractice was to regulate dispute settlement in medical malpractice as well as compensation for losses and damages and to compensate for people's life and physical injury as well as losses and damages of the properties promptly and fairly and to build up stable medical examination and treatment environment. The drafts of proposed laws were automatically cancelled at expiration of the 14th, 15th and 16th term National Assembly because of disagreement among physicians, medical service consumers (patients), the government's department in charge and other interested parties. Lawmakers' drafts of proposed law, that is to say, not only a draft of the Law on Prevention of Medical Accidents and Malpractice Relief 1) but also a draft of the Law on Health and Medical Dispute Settlement 2), were submitted to the 17th term National Assembly, and associated sub-committee of National Assembly had difficulties at investigation to cancel the law at expiration. In such a way, enactment of the law of medical dispute settlement continued to attempt as many as 22 years. As the press released recently, what was worse was confrontation among the government, medical circles and non government organizations concerning introduction of open-type investment hospitals jeopardized base of the Law of Medical Service that was enacted in 1973. This study examined medical accidents and medical dispute in malpractice briefly to investigate the law of medical dispute settlement and malpractice relief and to discuss issues in dispute.

医患纠纷的研究现状分析 —基于法社会学的思考

黄鹏航 원광대학교 법학연구소 2019 의생명과학과 법 Vol.22 No.-

Even though there are rich academic achievements in medical dispute research, theoretical still lacks in-depth discussion of research on medical behavior. It is a systemic problem of the current circumstances in the Chinese medical industry. In order to learn more about medical disputes, we can start mainly from the current situation of medical disputes, the causes of medical disputes, and the mechanism for medical dispute resolution. It needs to be emphasized that, the medical side obviously has an advantage,whether from the dominance of doctors and patients in medical practice, or the possession of medical knowledge and medical information. The research on the causes of medical disputes should start with medical factors. The research on the issues of medical disputes should be based on the practice of medical dispute cases and make a thorough inquiry of essence through the phenomenon. In short, formulating an effective dispute resolution approach is related to the healthy development of the entire medical industry. It is impossible to resolve doctor-patient contradictions and disputes barely by legal means. What's more, how to effectively resolve medical disputes is an afterthought. For medical dispute research, we should emphasize on the causes of medical disputes. 从目前关于医患纠纷的研究现状的研究来看,关于医疗纠纷研究的学术成果颇为丰富,但是理论界对医疗行为的研究缺乏深入的探讨。中国医疗行业目前存在的问题是一个系统性问题,对医疗纠纷诸问题研究而言,主要可以从医疗纠纷的现状、医疗纠纷的成因、医疗纠纷的解决机制等方面出发,进一步展开研究。需要强调的是,从医患双方在医疗实践中的主导性和掌握医学知识与医疗信息的拥有量来说,医方显然占优势。分析医疗纠纷的成因理当从医方因素入手。对于医疗纠纷诸问题的研究,需要从医疗纠纷案件的实践出发,要透过现象看本质。总之,构建有效的纠纷解决途径事关整个医疗行业健康发展。 医患矛盾和纠纷的存在,仅仅单纯依靠法律途径予以解决,不具有可行性。更何况,如何有效地解决医疗纠纷是后话。对于医疗纠纷研究而言,更为重要的是如何理解医疗纠纷,即为什么会产生此类抑或彼类的医疗纠纷。

“의료사고 피해구제 및 의료분쟁 조정 등에 관한 법률”에 있어서 조정제도 및 향후전망

신은주 ( Eun Joo Shin ) 한국의료법학회 2011 한국의료법학회지 Vol.19 No.1

의료사고처리와 의료분쟁을 처리하기 위한 법안이 국회에 발의된 지 23년만에 의료분쟁조정법이 제정됨으로써 의료분쟁 해결에 큰 전환점을 가져 오게 되었다. 즉 종래 합의에 이르지 못한 경우에 주로 소송을 통하여 분쟁을 해결하거나 실력행사를 통한 해결에서 의료분쟁 조정법에 의해 조정이나 중재와 같은 자주적인 방법에 의해 분쟁을 해결하는 방향으로 분쟁 해결방법이 변화됨으로서 분쟁당사자 간에 자율적으로 문제를 해결할 수 있도록 전환할 수 있다는 것을 의미한다. 이처럼 소송에 의한 분쟁해결과 달리 조정이나 중재를 통하여 자주적으로 분쟁을 해결하는 경우에는 당사자 사이의 갈등관계를 완전하게 해소함으로써 장래에도 지속적인 관계를 유지할 수 있다는 점에서 분쟁해결에 있어서 큰 변화를 가져 올 수 있을 것이다. 그러므로 의료분쟁조정법이 의사와 환자 사이에 분쟁을 적절히 해결함으로써 환자에게는 적절한 피해구제가 이루어질 수 있고 의사에게는 최선의 진료서비스를 제공할 수 있는 안정적인 진료환경이 구축될 수 있도록 하는데 기여할 수 있어야 한다. 조정을 통해 분쟁을 해결하는 경우에는 단순히 법률문제만을 다루는 것이 아니라 당사자의 그 밖의 관심사까지 고려하여 문제를 해결하기 때문에 서로에 대한 불편한 감정까지 해소할 수 있다. 따라서 조정이나 중재를 통하여 의료분쟁을 해결할 수 있도록 제정한 의료분쟁 조정법이 조정과 중재제도를 마련하고 감정단을 설치하여 적극적으로 사안을 규명하여 의료 분쟁을 해결하고자 한 것은 바람직하고 향후 이 법의 역할에 대한 많은 기대를 가지게 한다. On March, 2011, the Act of Medical Malpractice Damage's Relief and Mediation for Medical Dispute Resolutuin was enacted. The purpose of the Act is to relieve damages due to medical malpractice quickly and fairly. Thus, it pursues to create stable circumstances in medical service. The enactment of the Act means to change how people resolve dispute for medical malpractice. Because the Act seeks to resolve the dispute of medical malpractice through mediation or arbitration as alternation of lawsuits. So the disputants have more initiative in the course of dipute resolution by this Act. But mediation or arbitration in this act is not controlled the process by the disputants, because the act provides how and who deals with this process. However, the way of dipute resolution in medical malpractice by this Act is useful for the disputants. It establish a department of estimation and let it identify negligence of medical personnel and causation. The proof of negligence and causation is done by that department. So patient doesn't prove the negligence and causation on medical malpractice any more. In this sense, patient can overcome difficulties in proof. In addition to that, the committee of mediation give some proposition to the disputants. The dipute is ended if they accept the proposition. Therefore, the dispute through mediation or arbitration can resolve simpler and quicker than a lawsuit. The disputants in medical malpractice can resolve not only legal issues but also interests related the dispute, though. Accordingly, this alterantive way of dispute resolution is disirable. In conclusion, we look forward to resolve the dipute of medical malpractice through mediation or arbitration in the Act.

한국의 의료사고와 피해구제

최행식 원광대학교 법학연구소 2009 의생명과학과 법 Vol.2 No.-

In the 1980s, not only medical accident but also medical disputes became social problems in the nation, and from the year of 1988 me dical circles as well as the government started to discuss enactment of laws of dispute settlement in medical malpractice. The purpose of enactment of laws of dispute settlement in medical malpractice was t o regulate dispute settlement in medical malpractice as well as comp ensation for losses and damages and to compensate for people's life and physical injury as well as losses and damages of the properties promptly and fairly and to build up stable medical examination and tr eatment environment. The drafts of proposed laws were automatically cancelled at expir ation of the 14th, 15th and 16th term National Assembly because of disagreement among physicians, medical service consumers (patients), the government's department in charge and other interested parties. Lawmakers' drafts of proposed law, that is to say, not only a draft of the Law on Prevention of Medical Accidents and Malpractice Relief 1) but also a draft of the Law on Health and Medical Dispute Settlement 2), were submitted to the 17th term National Assembly, and associate d sub-committee of National Assembly had difficulties at investigation to cancel the law at expiration. In such a way, enactment of the law of medical dispute settlement continued to attempt as many as 22 years. As the press released recently, what was worse was confrontation among the government, medical circles and non government organizat ions concerning introduction of open-type investment hospitals jeopar dized base of the Law of Medical Service that was enacted in 1973. This study examined medical accidents and medical dispute in mal practice briefly to investigate the law of medical dispute settlement a nd malpractice relief and to discuss issues in dispute.