KJCKorea
Journal Central

This paper examines the ethical and constitutional limits of public health authority when infection control measures restrict access to essential medical treatment during infectious disease crises. Drawing on legal and bioethical scholarship and the case of MERS patient #80 in South Korea, we assess whether the prolonged isolation that suspended life-sustaining cancer therapy met standards of scientific justification and proportionality. The case underscores a key distinction between measures aimed at preventing transmission and measures that result in the denial of treatment for serious, unrelated conditions. Using the Siracusa Principles and the requirement of least restrictive means as a normative framework, we argue that restrictions on liberty must be lawful, necessary, and grounded in clear evidence of public health benefit. We also invoke H. L. A. Hart’s principle of fairness as a complementary lens for evaluating how the burdens of public health measures are distributed. Although individuals may have a moral duty to comply with infection control policies, such a duty presupposes that no group bears disproportionate, avoidable harm. We conclude that, even during public health emergencies, suspending non-deferrable, life-preserving treatment demands especially strong justification. Ethical and constitutional legitimacy depends not only on effective disease control but also on safeguarding access to essential medical care.

This study aims to develop a standardized informed consent system for whole-genome sequencing (WGS)-based newborn screening (NBS) in Korea through a policy design approach grounded in the domestic legal and policy context. We conducted an integrated literature review of international norms, domestic legal frameworks, guidelines, and major overseas WGS-based NBS programs using a common analytical framework. To develop a consent model feasible in the Korean context, we also analyzed stakeholder evidence from parent interviews and a clinician survey focused on consent-related issues. The findings indicate that the current Korean legal and institutional framework does not adequately address long-term storage, reanalysis, recontact, and the transfer of decision-making authority as the child matures. Based on these findings, we propose a Korean informed consent model consisting of a staged consent pathway spanning antenatal, postnatal, and adulthood-related decision points; tiered consent options for the return of results; and safeguards against disadvantage or discrimination related to participation, non-participation, or withdrawal. The study further suggests that implementation will require broader legal and procedural clarification across the relevant regulatory framework, along with the continued development of education and counseling strategies.

This study analyzed 22 criminal cases involving obstetricians and gynecologists to identify legal trends and propose measures to reduce the legal burden on medical professionals while maintaining stable healthcare services. The cases were retrieved from the Supreme Court of Korea Judicial Information Disclosure Portal using keywords such as “obstetrics,” “gynecology,” “expectant mother,” “fetus,” “neonate,” “delivery,” “uterus,” and “placenta.” The cases were classified into two categories: medical malpractice (16 cases, 72.7%) and abortion and bioethics (6 cases, 27.3%). Guilty verdicts were issued in 8 cases (36.4%), whereas 14 cases (63.6%) resulted in acquittal. The qualitative analysis showed that courts consistently protected physicians’ clinical discretion in unpredictable and unavoidable situations, such as amniotic fluid embolism and uterine atony, provided that standard medical protocols were followed. Procedural appropriateness, rather than the perfection of clinical outcomes, appeared to be the primary basis for judicial protection. Although the judiciary acknowledges the inherent limitations of medical practice and tends to protect physicians when established guidelines are followed, the high frequency of criminal prosecution remains a substantial burden on healthcare providers and may threaten the sustainability of obstetric care.