제2부 월간학술대회 발표논문

지도설명의무-판례 경향을 중심으로


The Instruction Explanation Obligation - Focusing on Cases -


피인용수 : 0(자료제공 : 네이버학술정보)



In order to achieve the purpose of treatment for patients by a doctor, the instruction explanation obligation, which means that he should give patients the description in more details to prepare for postoperative sequelae or complications, is common with the advice explanation obligation as a doctor should explain some information to patients. Since the advice explanation obligation is the benefit and protection of the law for self determination right, but the instruction explanation obligation is one for the integrity of body and life, one can be distinct from the other. Judgments giving the instruction on the concept of instruction explanation obligation, specific methods of implementation and a range of compensation for damage are recently being made by courts at all levels including the Supreme Court. It is the time to systematize them. The contents which have been mainly discussed so far include the essence of above mentioned instruction explanation obligation. However, when the tendency of practice is considered, the efforts are required to admit the organic relevance between instruction explanation obligation and advice explanation obligation and to explain the relationship without any contradiction. For whereabouts of liability of proof, patients theoretically demonstrate the failure to implement it. However, when the theoretical consistency is maintained, it is likely to fail the intent to recognize the instruction explanation obligation and it may ask patients to prove something impossible to be proven. Thus, these things should be considered. Moreover, as the instruction explanation obligation is associated with medicine instruction obligation of a pharmacist and the coverage is being extended, it is the time to require the systematic study on the theoretical limit.


I. 들어가며
 II. 지도설명의무의 개념과 주요판결례의 검토
  1. 지도설명의무와 조언설명의무의 구별
  2. 지도설명의무 관련 주요 판결례의 검토
 III. 증명책임의 문제
  1. 문제점
  2. 판결례의 검토
  3. 학설의 견해
  4. 검토
 IV. 적용범위
  1. 문제의 제기
  2. 약의 부작용이 문제된 경우
  3. 의료적 처치와 관련하여  지도설명의무가 문제되는 경우
  4. 법원 판단 경향의 고려 - 원고의 불명확한 주장을 지도설명의무와 조언설명의무로 선해(善解)하여 판단한 경우
  5. 소결
 V. 결어


  • 이정선 Lee, Jung Sun. 고려대학교 대학원 박사과정, 변호사, 의료문제를 생각하는 변호사 모임 학술이사


자료제공 : 네이버학술정보

    함께 이용한 논문

      ※ 기관로그인 시 무료 이용이 가능합니다.

      • 7,000원

      0개의 논문이 장바구니에 담겼습니다.