• Journal of Preventive Medicine and Public Health
• /
• v.49 no.1
• /
• pp.1-17
• /
• 2016

The Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) outbreak in South Korea in 2015 has drawn public attention regarding the legal regulation of infectious disease control in Korea. This paper discusses the interpretive and legislative concerns regarding the Infectious Disease Prevention and Control Act, its ordinance and enforcement regulations, as well as public statements from the relevant administrative agency. Future improvements are also proposed.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.16 no.2
• /
• pp.197-225
• /
• 2015

The presentation of this paper was triggered by the spread of MERS in Korea in the year 2015. The analysis of the present acts related with MERS is necessary in order to cope efficiently with any probable spread of such infectious diseases as MERS in future. The acts that should be analyzed in this paper include 'Medical Service Act' and 'Infectious Disease Control And Prevention Act' (hereafter, IDCAPA). At first the classification of the infectious diseases in IDCAPA should be referred to. The Act does not properly classify them because the scope of concept of each group of the infectious diseases overlaps each other. This overlap should be removed. The present system in IDCAPA is not proper for the efficient notification and reporting of the infectious disease patients. This is so in some viewpoints including the persons obligated to make the notification and reporting, the persons to whom they should notify and report such patients, and the process of notification and reporting. The efficient approach to the information related with the infectious disease is necessary for the rapid prevention of its spread. Cohort isolation and quarantine of the infectious patients and exposed contacts are the strongest and most efficient steps for the prevention of spread of the infectious diseases. One of the great problems related with such steps would be the conflict of powers or attributions, the likelihood of which is inevitable under the present system of IDCAPA. The IDCAPA distributed the power or attribution to take the steps to the three governments including the central government, the metropolitan government and the primary local government. The power should be concentrated in the central government, which could afford financially to compensate for the huge amount of damages caused likely by the steps. The power to take the steps would be actually just a useless thing for its holder without such financial capacity. The remedy for the victims by the fault of spreader should be approached to in the sense of national wealth. The general principle of tort law could not supply the victims with the sufficient remedy because the damages would be likely too huge for the wealth of such spreader to cope with. In future another parliamentary inspection could reveal another problems in the administration by the government of the MERS event in the year 2015. Any problem caused by defect in the legal system of the control and prevention of the infectious diseases should be taken into consideration when the legal system would be reformed in future.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.23 no.3
• /
• pp.3-44
• /
• 2022

As a result of a close review focusing on the case of obstruction of epidemiological investigation by a religious group A in Daegu, which was a problem when the pandemic of Covid-19 infection began in Korea around February 2, 2020, when an epidemiological investigator requested a specific group to submit a list, While there have been cases where an act of not responding or submitting an edited omission list was sentenced to the effect that the act did not fall under an epidemiological investigation, in the case of non-submission of the visitor list for the B Center, even though a 'list of visitors' was requested. Regarding the fact of refusal without a justifiable reason, 'providing a list of persons entering the building is a key factual act that forms a link between epidemiological investigations accompanying an epidemiological investigation, and refusing to do so is also an act of refusal and obstruction of an epidemiological investigation. There are cases where it is possible to demand criminal punishment. Regardless of whether the request for submission of the membership list falls under the epidemiological investigation, there are cases in which the someones' actions correspond to the refusal or obstruction of the epidemiological investigation. A lower court ruling that if an epidemiological investigation is rejected or obstructed as a result of interfering with factual acts accompanying an epidemiological investigation, comprehensively considering whether or not the list has been diverted for purposes other than epidemiological investigation, the logic is persuasive. Epidemiological investigations such as surveys and human specimen collection and testing are conducted for each infectious disease patient or contact confirmed as a result of the epidemiological investigation, but epidemiological investigations conducted on individual individuals cannot exist independently of each other, and the This is because the process of identification and tracking is essential to an epidemiological investigation, and if someone intentionally interferes with or rejects the process of confirming this link, it will result in direct, realistic, and widespread interference with the epidemiological investigation. In this article, ① there are differences between an epidemiological investigation and a request for information provision under the Infectious Disease Control and Prevention Act, but there are areas that fall under the epidemiological investigation even in the case of a request for information, ② Considering the medical characteristics of COVID-19 and the continuity of the epidemiological investigation, the epidemiological investigator the fact that the act of requesting a list may fall under the epidemiological investigation, ③ that the offense of obstructing the epidemiological investigation in certain cases may constitute 'obstruction of Performance of Official Duties by Fraudulent Means', and ④ rejecting the request for information provision under the Infectious Disease Control and Prevention Act from September 29, 2020 In this case, it is intended to be helpful in the application of the Infectious Disease control and Prevention Act and the practical operation of epidemiological investigations in the future by pointing out the fact that a new punishment regulation of imprisonment or fine is being implemented.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.23 no.4
• /
• pp.75-102
• /
• 2022

In this article, 「Act on the hospice and palliative care and decisions on life-sustaining treatment for patients at the end of life」, 「Act On The Improvement Of Mental Health And The Support For Welfare Services For Mental Patients」, 「Organs Transplant Act」, 「Safety And Management Of Human Tissue Act」, 「Pharmaceutical Affairs Act」, 「Prevention Of Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome Act」, 「Tuberculosis Prevention Act」, 「Infectious Disease Control And Prevention Act」 were reviewed. Patients' right to self-determination and consent in these laws are related to civil law. even though they are closely related to the civil law in relation to patients' right to self-determination and consent. In order to consistently operate medical administration, it is necessary to understand the principles of civil law decision-making.

• Journal of Industrial Convergence
• /
• v.18 no.6
• /
• pp.9-17
• /
• 2020

COVID19 is causing many fundamental phenomena all over the world. Since January 2020, the number of confirmed medical examinations has increased significantly worldwide, and the medical systems in each country have become paralyzed. South Korea has taken a proactive approach and is doing well, befitting the name K-Peace Prevention. However, it can be said that there is still a lack of awareness of legal and administrative limits. In this study examines the shortcomings and limitations of the laws relevant to the current infectious disease prevention and management systems from the perspective of criminal policy based on the "Infectious Disease Control and Prevention Act," and comparatively analyzes the laws in advanced countries to propose effective and practical criminal policy response measures for the prevention and control of infectious diseases.

• Health Policy and Management
• /
• v.28 no.3
• /
• pp.301-307
• /
• 2018

The development of transport is being easily shared with people all over the world. It is necessary to appropriately and effectively revise the domestic quarantine law because the fatal infectious diseases are at risk of being easily shared. Today, Korea has an advanced quarantine system approved by World Health Organization, but it maintains partnerships with related ministries (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ministry of Justice, local medical institutions) and to introduce new medical technology (electronic quarantine) is important. And since the prevention of quarantine infectious diseases and prevention of the spread, in order to maintain international cooperation with the International Health Regulations, the quarantine law and the system should be amended and improved effectively and it is also a way to prepare for the outbreak of new quarantine infectious diseases. In the past, Korea has experienced great confusion during the past outbreak of swine flu and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus. To prevent similar cases from recurring in the past, the revision of the quarantine law and the improvement of the system should be done to cope with the changing environment (new infections, increased number of overseas travelers, etc.).

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.16 no.2
• /
• pp.55-84
• /
• 2015

The tuberculosis is the infectious disease. Generally, the active tuberculosis patient can infect the 10 persons for one year within the daily activities like casual conversation and singing together. The infectivity of tuberculosis can continue for a life time, and infected persons can remain at risk for developing active tuberculosis. To control this contagious disease, along with the active tuberculosis patients, non-infectious but non-compliant patients who can be infectious if their immune systems become impaired have to be managed. To control the non-complaint patients, medical treatment order should be combined with the public order. Because tuberculosis is the risk of community health, the human rights like liberty and freedom of movement can be restricted for public welfare under the article 37(2) of constitution. Even when such restriction is imposed, no essential aspect of the freedom or right shall be violated. The degree of restriction on the rights of citizens is different what methods are chosen to non-complaint patients. For example, under the directly observed therapy program, the patients and medical staffs make an appointment and meet to confirm the drug intakes according to the schedule, which is the medical treatment combined with the mildest public order. If the patients break the appointments or have the history of disobedient, the involuntary detention can obtain the legitimate cause. The Tuberculosis Prevention Act has the two step programs on this involuntary detention, The admission order (Article 15) is issued when the patients are infectious. The quarantine order (Artle 15-2) is issued when the patients are infectious and non-complaint. The legal criteria for involuntary detention are discussed and published through the international conventions and covenants. For example, World Health Organization had made guidance on human rights and involuntary detention for tuberculosis control. The restrictions should be carried out in accordance with the our law and in the legitimate objective of public interest. And the restriction should be based on scientific evidence and not imposed in an unreasonable or discriminatory manner. We define and adopt these international criteria under our constitution and legal system. Least restrictive alternative principle, proportionality principle and the individual evaluation methods are explained through the reviews of United States court decisions. Habeas Corpus Act is reviewed and adopted as the procedural due process to protect the patient rights as a citizen. Along with that, what conditions and facilities which are needed to performed quarantine order are discussed.

• Korea Journal of Hospital Management
• /
• v.25 no.3
• /
• pp.38-52
• /
• 2020

Purpose: The purpose of the study is to suggest the main functions and implications of public hospitals to effectively respond to the future epidemic crisis based on analyzing the accessibility to designated Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) medical institutions of Seoul and examining the main features of the quarantine of Seoul municipal hospitals. Method: To analyze the response and function of Seoul municipal hospitals, we reviewed the Infectious Disease Control and Prevention ACT, 258 articles of Seoul Metropolitan Government press releases from January to the end of April, 48 articles of Seoul Metropolitan Government's daily newsletters, 2019 Health Bureau Budget report. We also referred to internal data of Seoul Children's Hospital, Seoul Seobuk Hospital, and Seoul Eunpyeong Hospital during the same period. Besides, the accessibility to medical institutions was analyzed by using the COVID-19 data which was announced daily basis. Results: The accessibility of COVID-19 patients living in the Southeastern part of Seoul to a medical institutions was 16.2km on a distance basis, and it was the lowest accessibility among four regions of Seoul since it took about 40 minutes by car. On the other hand, patients living in the Northeast part had the highest accessibility, as the access to medical institutions was 10.7km and 27 minutes by car. Also, the main functions of the municipal hospital of Seoul against COVID-19 were to shift the public hospital function to COVID-19 patients only hospitals, to perform the epidemiological investigation by medical doctors, and to support the operation of self-isolation facilities, community treatment centers and triage rooms of community health centers. Conclusion: Through the experience of COVID-19, we suggested that the functions of public hospitals will be reorganized as the reinforcement of infectious disease treatment and mental health for quarantined patients, cooperation with private hospitals, supporting for strengthening community health capacity and preparation for another epidemic.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.21 no.2
• /
• pp.105-162
• /
• 2020

In the pandemic of infectious disease, restrictions of individual liberty have been justified in the name of public health and public interest. In March 2020, the National Assembly of the Republic of Korea passed the revised bill of the 「Infectious Disease Control and Prevention Act.」 The revised bill newly established the legal basis for forced testing and disclosure of the information of confirmed cases, and also raised the penalties for violation of self-isolation and treatment refusal. This paper examines whether and how these individual liberty limiting clauses be justified, and if so on what ethical and philosophical grounds. The authors propose the theories of the philosophy of law related to the justifiability of liberty-limiting measures by the state and conceptualized the dual-aspect of applying the liberty-limiting principle to the infected patient. In COVID-19 pandemic crisis, the infected person became the 'Patient as Victim and Vector (PVV)' that posits itself on the overlapping area of 'harm to self' and 'harm to others.' In order to apply the liberty-limiting principle proposed by Joel Feinberg to a pandemic with uncertainties, it is necessary to extend the harm principle from 'harm' to 'risk'. Under the crisis with many uncertainties like COVID-19 pandemic, this shift from 'harm' to 'risk' justifies the state's preemptive limitation on individual liberty based on the precautionary principle. This, at the same time, raises concerns of overcriminalization, i.e., too much limitation of individual liberty without sufficient grounds. In this article, we aim to propose principles regarding how to balance between the precautionary principle for preemptive restrictions of liberty and the concerns of overcriminalization. Public health crisis such as the COVID-19 pandemic requires a population approach where the 'population' rather than an 'individual' works as a unit of analysis. We propose the second expansion of the harm principle to be applied to 'population' in order to deal with the public interest and public health. The new concept 'risk to population,' derived from the two arguments stated above, should be introduced to explain the public health crisis like COVID-19 pandemic. We theorize 'the extended harm principle' to include the 'risk to population' as a third liberty-limiting principle following 'harm to others' and 'harm to self.' Lastly, we examine whether the restriction of liberty of the revised 「Infectious Disease Control and Prevention Act」 can be justified under the extended harm principle. First, we conclude that forced isolation of the infected patient could be justified in a pandemic situation by satisfying the 'risk to the population.' Secondly, the forced examination of COVID-19 does not violate the extended harm principle either, based on the high infectivity of asymptomatic infected people to others. Thirdly, however, the provision of forced treatment can not be justified, not only under the traditional harm principle but also under the extended harm principle. Therefore it is necessary to include additional clauses in the provision in order to justify the punishment of treatment refusal even in a pandemic.

• Safety and Health at Work
• /
• v.12 no.4
• /
• pp.530-535
• /
• 2021

Background: Despite the lack of official COVID-19 statistics, various workplaces and occupations have been at the center of COVID-19 outbreaks. We aimed to compare legal measures and governance established for managing COVID-19 infection risks at workplaces in nine Asia and Pacific countries and to recommend key administrative measures. Methods: We collected information on legal measures and governance from both general citizens and workers regarding infection risks such as COVID-19 from industrial hygiene professionals in nine countries (Indonesia, India, Japan, Malaysia, New Zealand, Republic of the Philippines, Republic of Korea, Taiwan, and Thailand) using a structured questionnaire. Results: A governmental body overseeing public health and welfare was in charge of containing the spread and occurrence of infectious diseases under an infectious disease control and prevention act or another special act, although the name of the pertinent organizations and legislation vary among countries. Unlike in the case of other traditional hazards, there have been no specific articles or clauses describing the means of mitigating virus risk in the workplace that are legally required of employers, making it difficult to define the responsibilities of the employer. Each country maintains own legal systems regarding access to the duration, administration, and financing of paid sick leave. Many workers may not have access to paid sick leave even if it is legally guaranteed.