2024, Vol.27, No.3

Korean Journal of Medical Ethics 2023 KCI Impact Factor : 1.21

pISSN : 2005-8284 / eISSN : 2234-3598
https://journal.kci.go.kr/medethics

Digital healthcare, which provides medical services using information and communication technology (ICT), is emerging as a new paradigm, replacing traditional methods of healthcare. This study investigates research trends in digital healthcare through an analysis of studies published in South Korea on the ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSI) of digital healthcare. To this end, a total of 471 articles drawn from Korean academic journals in the humanities, law, and social sciences, were selected as research subjects, and the current status, characteristics, and research tasks were identified. The results show that Korean ELSI research on digital healthcare emerged about 20 years ago and has steadily increased, with in-depth analyses of various sub-topics such as telemedicine, big data, artificial intelligence, wearable devices, and digital therapeutics. Additionally, notable differences were found among studies in the three fields examined concerning research purposes, methods, and major findings. This study comprehensively reviews the research outcomes of studies in each academic field and proposes future tasks for ELSI research.

The conceptualization of disability is not merely a descriptive issue but also a normative one, as the way disability is viewed can fundamentally shift the focus of what constitutes ethically appropriate support for disabled people. This paper reviews the historical debates surrounding models of disability over the past several decades, arguing that each model is a product of conceptual engineering, developed in response to normative needs related to disability. Given the persistent conflicts between these models, we propose a "pluralistic approach to disability" as a solution to the deadlock between them. It is argued that the conceptualization of disability does not require adopting a single stance among conflicting models; rather, by employing a pluralistic approach as part of strategic conceptual engineering, it becomes possible to more effectively address the diverse normative demands surrounding disability

In this article, I analyze the concept of shared decision-making to explain what is shared, who decides, how the decision is made, and how shared decision-making differs from informed consent. Building on the work of Veatch and Charles, I argue that shared decision-making has two essential features: (a) it helps patients make decisions while respecting their right to self-determination, and (b) it maintains the integrity of both physicians and patients. Furthermore, using the three-talk model and the six steps approach to shared decision-making, I explicate the concept of “mutual acceptance,” which is central to this process. Mutual acceptance of the final decision is a two-step process: physicians first formulate options that align with their own integrity, and then patients deliberate and choose the options that best suit their needs, wishes, and constraints. Thus, I argue that mutual acceptance represents physicians’ acceptance of their patients’ final decisions. Furthermore, the closer the original options are to equipoise, the less psychological burden physicians will experience regarding the choices their patients make.