- 영문명
- The Comparative Legal Studies on the Report Obligation of the Doctor
- 발행기관
- 한국재산법학회
- 저자명
- 송영민(Song Young-Min)
- 간행물 정보
- 『재산법연구』財産法硏究 第24卷 第2號, 295~327쪽, 전체 33쪽
- 주제분류
- 법학 > 법학
- 파일형태
- 발행일자
- 2007.10.30
국문 초록
영문 초록
There are various opinion on the type of the report obligation of the doctor. The report obligation above could be divided into three cases which is "before therapy", "under therapy" and "after therapy", and then the "after therapy" could be explained by dividing into two branches, that is, "when the patient is living" and "after the patient died".
Especially, in case the patient is dead during the therapy, the bereaved often want to know the account and the cause of the death. These expectation of the bereaved should be able to insist as the right to the doctor.
However, according to the domestic theories, there are not much debates on the full account report obligation after therapy. The reasons are as follows. Firstly, the full account report obligation is different from the self-decision right like as whether to be remedied or not. Secondly, although the full account report obligation is accepted and the violation of the obligation is admitted, it is hardly admitted as the ground of compensation responsibility for damages.
However, if the explanatory obligation before therapy is admitted, it is appropriate to construe affirmatively in the point that it is not fair to admit the explanatory obligation after therapy, or in the point of the right defence of the patient.
Thus, explanatory contents of the full account report obligation should be accepted as an independent obligation, which is not included in any types of explanatory obligation being admitted from the past.
In addition, the full account report obligation to the bereaved couldn"t be done by the Law of Inheritance, and then it could be found in the principle of the faith and sincerity of the Civil Law as the ground.
Especially, in case the patient is dead during the therapy, the bereaved often want to know the account and the cause of the death. These expectation of the bereaved should be able to insist as the right to the doctor.
However, according to the domestic theories, there are not much debates on the full account report obligation after therapy. The reasons are as follows. Firstly, the full account report obligation is different from the self-decision right like as whether to be remedied or not. Secondly, although the full account report obligation is accepted and the violation of the obligation is admitted, it is hardly admitted as the ground of compensation responsibility for damages.
However, if the explanatory obligation before therapy is admitted, it is appropriate to construe affirmatively in the point that it is not fair to admit the explanatory obligation after therapy, or in the point of the right defence of the patient.
Thus, explanatory contents of the full account report obligation should be accepted as an independent obligation, which is not included in any types of explanatory obligation being admitted from the past.
In addition, the full account report obligation to the bereaved couldn"t be done by the Law of Inheritance, and then it could be found in the principle of the faith and sincerity of the Civil Law as the ground.
목차
Ⅰ. 서론
Ⅱ. 설명의무의 유형으로서의 전말보고의무
Ⅲ. 전말보고의무에 관한 비교법적 고찰
Ⅳ. 의사의 사인설명의무
Ⅴ. 결론
참고문헌
〈Abstract〉
Ⅱ. 설명의무의 유형으로서의 전말보고의무
Ⅲ. 전말보고의무에 관한 비교법적 고찰
Ⅳ. 의사의 사인설명의무
Ⅴ. 결론
참고문헌
〈Abstract〉
키워드
해당간행물 수록 논문
참고문헌
최근 이용한 논문
교보eBook 첫 방문을 환영 합니다!
신규가입 혜택 지급이 완료 되었습니다.
바로 사용 가능한 교보e캐시 1,000원 (유효기간 7일)
지금 바로 교보eBook의 다양한 콘텐츠를 이용해 보세요!