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
인문학
인문학 일반 역사학 철학 종교학 어문학 기타 인문학
사회과학
사회과학 일반 경영학 관광학 교육학 군사학 문헌정보학 법학 사회학 신문방송학 심리과학 정치외교학 지리학 행정학 경제학 무역학 인류학 기타 사회과학
자연과학
자연과학 일반 물리학 생물학 생활과학 수학·통계학 천문학 지구과학 화학 기타 자연과학
공학
공학 일반 건축공학 기계공학 산업공학 재료·에너지공학 전기전자공학 조선해양공학 화학공학 컴퓨터학 기타공학
의약학
의학 일반 간호학 수의학 약학 한의학 기초의학 임상의학 기타 의약학
농수해양학
농수해양학 일반 농학 수산학 식품과학 임학 축산학 해상운송학 기타 농수해양학
예술체육학
예술 일반 디자인 미술 미용 사진 음악학 의상 체육 공연매체예술 기타 예술체육학
복합학
학제간연구 과학기술학 뇌인지과학 기술정책 기타 복합학

ENG

추천
검색

논문 기본 정보

자료유형
학술저널
저자정보
손흥수 (서울고등법원)
저널정보
대한의료법학회 의료법학 의료법학 제11권 제1호
발행연도
2010.1
수록면
331 - 393 (63page)

이용수

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

초록· 키워드

오류제보하기
Psychiatrists who treat violent or potentially violent patients may be sue for failure to control aggressive outpatients and for the discharge of violent inpatients. Psychiatrists may be sued for failing to protect society from the violent acts of their patients if it was reasonable for the psychiatrists to have known or should have known about the patient's violent tendencies and if the psychiatrists could have done something that could have safeguarded in public. The courts of a number of jurisdictions have imposed a duty to protect the potential victims of a third party on persons or institutions with a special relationship to that party. In the landmark case of Tarasoff v Regents of University of California, the California Supreme Court held that the special relationship between a psychotherapist and a patient imposes on the therapist a duty to act reasonably to protect the foreseeable victims of the patient. Under Tarasoff, when a therapist has determined, or under applicable professional standards should determine, that a patient poses a serious threat of violence to another, he incurs an obligation to use reasonable care to protect the intended victim against such danger. In addition to a Tarasoff type of action based on a duty to warn or protect foreseeable victims of psychiatric outpatients, courts have also imposed liability on mental health care providers based on their custody of patients known to have violent propensities. The legal duty in such a case has been stated to be that where the course of treatment of a mental patient involves an exercise of "control" over him by a physician who knows or should know that the patient is likely to cause bodily harm to others, an independent duty arises from that relationship and falls on the physician to exercise that control with such reasonable care as to prevent harm to others at the hands of the patient. After going through a period of transition, from McIntosh, Thompson and Brady case, finally, the narrow rule of requiring a specific or foreseeable threat of violence against a specific or identifiable victim is the standard threshold or trigger element in the majority of states. Judgements on these kinds of cases are not enough yet in Korea, so that it may be too early to try find principles in these cases, however it is hardly wrong to read the same reasons of Tarasoff in the judgements of Korea district courts. To specific, whether a psychiatric institute was liable for violent behavior toward others depends upon the patients conditions, circumstances and the extent of the danger the patients poses to others; in short, the foreseeability of a specific or identifiable victim. In this context if a patient exhibit strong violent behavior toward others, constant observation should be required. Negligence has been found not exist, however, when a patient abruptly and unexpectedly attack others or unidentifiable victim. And the standard of conduct that is required to meet the obligation of "due care" is based on what the "reasonable practitioner" would do in like circumstances. The standard is not one of excellence or superior practice; it only requires that the physician exercise that degree of skill and care that would be expected of the average qualified practitioner practicing under like circumstances. All these principles have been established in cases of the U.S.A and Japan. In this article you can find the reasons which you can use for psychotherapist's liability for failure to protect third person in Korea as practitioner.
#정신질환 #타해사고 #의료과오책임 #손해배상 #피해자 특정 #예견가능성 #정신질환 현황, 정신과 의료사고 현황 #정신과의사 #고지의무 #보호의무 #책임근거 #면책 #Psychotherapist's liability for failure to protect third person #Tarasoff #Psychiatrists #Outpatients #Inpatients #Duty to warn #Duty to protect #Specific or identifiable victim #Foreseeability #Special relationship #Liability #Control #Negligence #Japan #Korea

목차

등록된 정보가 없습니다.

참고문헌 (0)

참고문헌 신청
참고문헌이 DBpia에서 서비스 중이라면, [참고문헌 신청]을 통해 등록해보세요

함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문

논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!

이 논문의 저자 정보

최근 본 자료

전체보기

댓글(0)

0