의료과오소송에 있어서 설명·동의에 관한 소고

A study on the informed consent in the medical malpractice suit

In recent times, it is generally recognized that patients must ensure right of self–determination, right to know, consent competency in medical practice. However, in reality, the doctor is expert who has professional knowledge on the medicine field, whereas patients are layperson about medicine. Under these circumstances, it is natural that patients should be in a disadvantageous position in comparison with doctor. In this situation, it is required for the patients to ask various questions about disease, to advocate patient’s right to know. Also, doctor must make sufficient explanations to guarantee patients’ right. Doctor should not manage to escape liability by formal and insincere questions. By setting up a good and trustful doctor–patient relationship, we can prohibit defensive medicine executed by a doctor. At the same time, we can foster more desirable treatment milieu between them. Informed consent is derived from to secure patient’s or participant’s right to self–determination substantially in the field of medical practice and medical research. On the other point of view, some opinions show that it is desirable to restrict informed consent to attenuate psychological burden, in case of participating medical treatment and medical research for the sake of securing patient’s or participant’s self–determination effectively. But this is superficial viewpoint. This is dimensionally different problem. Henceforth, That problem can practically be deduced a conclusion, vice versa, in real medical practice. In conclusion, it should be desirable to acquire informed consent from patients, except for the inevitable circumstances. To this point of view, we should solve this difficult problem rationally.