메뉴 건너뛰기
.. 내서재 .. 알림
소속 기관/학교 인증
인증하면 논문, 학술자료 등을  무료로 열람할 수 있어요.
한국대학교, 누리자동차, 시립도서관 등 나의 기관을 확인해보세요
(국내 대학 90% 이상 구독 중)
로그인 회원가입 고객센터 ENG
주제분류

추천
검색
질문

논문 기본 정보

자료유형
학술저널
저자정보
박철호 (전주대)
저널정보
한양법학회 한양법학 한양법학 제37집
발행연도
2012.2
수록면
265 - 288 (24page)

이용수

표지
📌
연구주제
📖
연구배경
🔬
연구방법
🏆
연구결과
AI에게 요청하기
추천
검색
질문

초록· 키워드

오류제보하기
Wrongful birth describes a cause of action or claim by parents of a deformed or defective child who allege that negligent advice as to the risk of genetic or birth defects or negligent treatment, or failure to abort a fetus, by the doctor deprived them of the choice of avoiding the child’s conception or of terminating the pregnancy. In these cases, parents of child with disability allege that because the defendant doctor breached the duty owed to the patient, they were denied the opportunity to make an informed decision. This claim lies on the basis that had it not been for the doctor’s negligence, the imperfect child would not have been born. In traditional medical malpractice lawsuits doctor’s negligence is the direct cause in the child’s disability, but in wrongful birth cases his/her negligence are the indirect causes of child birth. After this new type of lawsuit like wrongful birth action had been litigated in the United States in the 1930s many courts in Germany, France, UK including the United States have been recognized to recover to the parents for birth of child with disability. In contrast, in Korea, wrongful birth actions have been brought by parents alleging that the physician’s negligence of their child caused the injury in 1990s in many lower court and since that time these have been big issues legally and socially. While some lower courts have recognized in this new type cause of action, others have rejected it based on the difficulty in determining damages. On the other hand the Supreme Court of Korea has generally indicated negative attitude to the cause of wrongful birth action. However, Korean Supreme Court, for the first time as the highest Court, had decided to recover to parents of children with disabilities for the mental damages excepting for property damages in 2002. After this 2002 Supreme Court decision because there are only one judgment in Seoul Western District Court it can not be said that many wrongful birth actions will be brought sooner or later. But in a long-term perspective it can be said that this new type actions will be gradually increasing in Korea. It was apparent that Korean Courts still had a negative view to the cause of wrongful birth action. But because the Supreme Court’s 2002 decision agreeing to allow the parents of disabled child to recover damages for the mental anguish was said rather progressive, it may seems to be a positive outlook on this issue. Meanwhile many courts of Korea have determined whether it can allow the parents of disabled child to recover damages, basing on Article 14 of Maternal and Child Health Act, allowance standard of abortion. When the abortion of the disabled fetus only can be allowed depending on Article 14 of Maternal and Child Health Act, Courts allowed damages to the parents of children with disabilities. But this Article 14 has been designed to allow abortion because of the health of the parents and this is just standard to judge whether the maintenance of pregnancy is harmful to the health of the mother of fetus. Therefore, it is unreasonable that it should be decided to recover the damages to the parents in wrongful birth action whether or not to admit by the Article 14 of Maternal and Child Health Act. Thus, the court should change their views. So it should be decided to recover the damages to the parents in wrongful birth action because of the doctor’s negligence, the duty violation doctor’s explanation and the health of the fetus itself. In this paper, it was reviewed the Supreme Court’s 2002 decision, investigated about whether or not to admit demage recover in this type of action, and examined the compensation range.

목차

Ⅰ. 서론
Ⅱ. 대상판결의 개요
Ⅲ. 학설의 입장
Ⅳ. 검토
Ⅴ. 결론
참고문헌
Abstract

참고문헌 (0)

참고문헌 신청

이 논문과 연관된 판례 (5)

  • 대법원 1999. 6. 11. 선고 98다33062 판결

    [1] 의사가 오진을 하였다고 하여 곧바로 고의나 과실이 있다고 할 수는 없다.

    자세히 보기
  • 서울서부지방법원 2006. 12. 6. 선고 2005가합4819 판결

    [1] 상염색체 열성유전질환이 있는 자녀를 출산한 경험이 있는 산모를 담당하는 산부인과 전문의로서는 산모 등이 정상아를 출산하고자 하였고 태아가 위 유전질환 환자인 것을 예상하였다면 출산하지 아니하였을 것임이 확실하므로, 통상의 경우와 달리 산모가 포태한 태아가 위 유전질환 환자일 가능성을 배제하기 위하여 가능한 모든 검사를 시행하여 보아야

    자세히 보기
  • 서울고등법원 2000. 9. 28. 선고 99나51588 판결

    자세히 보기
  • 대법원 1999. 6. 11. 선고 98다22857 판결

    [1] 의사가 기형아 판별확률이 높은 검사 방법에 관하여 설명하지 아니하여 임산부가 태아의 기형 여부에 대한 판별확률이 높은 검사를 받지 못한 채 다운증후군에 걸린 아이를 출산한 경우, 모자보건법 제14조 제1항 제1호는 인공임신중절수술을 할 수 있는 경우로 임산부 본인 또는 배우자가 대통령령이 정하는 우생학적 또는 유전학적 정신장애나

    자세히 보기
  • 부산지방법원 2001. 2. 13. 선고 99가합16425 판결

    [1]임산부의 산전진료를 담당한 의사가 혈액검사를 시행한 결과 다운증후군과 개방형 신경관결손 모두에 양성반응이 나타나자 임산부에게 정밀검사를 받을 것을 적극 권유하여 다른 병원에 양수염색체검사를 의뢰하였다면 그 취지를 직접 검사시행자인 의사에게 보다 명백하게 알려 주어야 함에도 통상의 예에 따라 기계적·형식적으로 양수염색체검사를 의뢰하였을

    자세히 보기

이 논문의 저자 정보

이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문

최근 본 자료

전체보기

댓글(0)

0

UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2013-360-002628124