In 2018, a patient who was undergoing bee stitching at a Korean medicine hospital caused a shock. It was an anaphylactic shock that caused an allergic reaction all over the body due to bee venom. The family doctor at the next hospital gave first aid in good faith, but the patient died of cardiac arrest. The patient's family filed a large lawsuit with the oriental medical doctor for the first aid family doctor. If not, it doesn't matter, but if it doesn't, you should have had first aid in a reasonable amount of time.
The case has caused controversy over how well-meaning public and medical personnel involved in emergency rescue can be protected by the so-called Good Samaritan Act if the condition of the emergency deteriorates or dies. For reference, the law derives from a story saved by the Gentile Samaritans, who passed away from the Bible without seeing a Jewish priest or Levites of the same nation who were almost killed. This good Samaritan law enacts the moral and ethical duty of not letting others in trouble when they see or see others in danger. These emergencies can occur outside medical institutions, such as on airplanes, in public facilities, and on streets, but they can also occur in other medical institutions or the same medical institutions where no medical personnel are employed.
Currently, in Korea, the legal provision known as 'Good Samaritan Act' is Article 2 of Article 5 of the Act on Emergency Medical Care (aka Emergency Medical Care Act). If there is no intentional or material negligence in respect of property damages or accidents caused by providing first aid, the actor shall not be held liable for civil and injury, and the criminal liability for death shall be reduced. ' .
What was problematic in this case was that the above disclaimer was too sparse. In other words, the main problem areas are the provisions of 'When not performing business' and 'Intentional or gross negligence' along with 'Reduction of criminal liability for death'.
First of all, 'when not working' is generally thought of as 'out of place' or 'time' of doing business. If you are not a medical worker, but you are studying or doing other chores in a particular place of a medical institution or hospital where you work, if you have an emergency situation in the ward and participate in emergency medical activities, this situation is 'on the job'. It's ambiguous. In addition, as in the case above, even if an emergency occurs in another medical institution where you are working but you are not working, it may be debated whether or not you should consider it as “in progress.” For reference, the United States expanded the application of good Samaritan law, suggesting that the doctor would not be employed by the medical institution and would not charge for the medical services provided.
In addition, the exception to the disclaimer is the content of intentional or gross negligence in the case of 'no intentional or gross negligence'. Even if the same medical personnel are provided, the medical services provided by the equipment or personnel can vary greatly.A medical person who treats an emergency patient without the help of equipment or other medical assistants in a different environment than the usual one may have a wrong decision. It also increases your chances of making mistakes, so you may make mistakes that you wouldn't normally do. Therefore, if the above situation is not considered when the court judges the presence of intentional or serious negligence, it may be unfortunate for the medical staff in good faith to participate in the emergency.
Finally, the most problematic issue is the provision of exempt criminal liability for death. In the event of death of a patient who has received first aid, even if there is no intentional or serious negligence in respect of property damages and accidents caused by providing emergency medical care or first aid, the actor shall be civilly liable for the medical practice and at the same time the criminal legal responsibility. This means that only criminal liability is reduced.
For example, suppose a medical practitioner voluntarily participates in the event of an emergency patient on a plane or other place where he or she is not performing work, even though there are no legal obligations and economic benefits to provide first aid. At this time, if the result is good, it is fortunate, but if the patient dies because of poor results, civil and criminal liability can be held.
Of course, I do not know the meaning of this clause. Many emergency situations, however, require a patient to die, ie, CPR. According to this provision, even if a patient voluntarily participates in an emergency rescue operation in good faith, if the patient dies, the medical worker who participated in the emergency rescue operation may be liable for damages of the patient's family with reduced criminal penalties. It can be said that the price is severe for voluntarily participating in emergency rescue at no cost. This uncertainty may make it possible for a healthcare practitioner to participate in emergency medical care or first aid if the patient is in such a condition that he or she is not dead to minimize his or her responsibility, but not if he or she is likely to die. In other words. One of the main reasons for the emergence of first aid was the fear of legal liability, but the current legislation has not solved it at all.
Some doctors say that if you have an unexpected emergency on the plane, you will have to drink when you fly. It's a funny situation. There seems to be a time when social worries are needed as to why this is happening and how to solve it.
Copyrightⓒ 'Honest Knowledge for Health' Comedy.com (http://kormedi.com) / All rights reserved.