지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
인공지능 영상의학 진료 과정은 주로 데이터 사전 처리, 영상 분할, 특징 취합 및 적정성 판단이라는 네 과정을 포함한다. 인공지능 영상 진료기술은 주로 아래 세 가지 기능이 있다. 첫째, 영상의학 진료의 정확도를 향상시킨다. 둘째, 영상의학 진료업무의 효율을 향상시킨다. 셋째, 영상의학 진료 응용 현장을 개척하는 기능이 있다. 현재 중국의 인공지능 영상의학 진료기술 응용 모델은 주로 세 가지가 있다. 첫째, 대형병원 영상의학 진료 모델이 있다. 둘째, 원격의료 영상의학 진료 모델이 있다. 셋째, 의료영상을 기타 병원으로 옮겨 진료하는 모델이 있다.
공동 권리 침해에 대해 중국 「권리침해책임법」은 협의의 개념을 적용하고 있는데, 단지 多數人의 권리 침해에 한정된다. 多數人의 권리 침해행위는 다시 공동 권리 침해행위와 개별적인 권리 침해행위로 분류된다. 인공지능 영상의학 진료에 따른 권리 침해행위의 손해배상 책임에 대해서는 공정성을 기대할 수 있는 효과가 있다. 첫째, 인공지능 영상의학 진료에 따른 권리 침해행위는 공동 권리 침해행위의 기본 특징을 구비하지 않는다. 둘째, 인공지능 영상의학 진료로 발생한 환자에 대한 권리 침해행위는 객관적으로 多數人의 권리 침해행위와 차별화된다. 셋째, 인공지능 영상의학 진료가 환자에 대해 조성한 권리 침해행위는 중국 「권리침해책임법」차원에서는 공동 권리보다는 개별적인 권리 침해행위에서의 간접 결합행위에 속한다. 인공지능 영상의학 보조 진료가 환자에 대해 초래한 권리 침해 책임의 구성 요건은 손해가 발생한 결과, 권리 침해행위, 인과관계 및 과실이라는 네 가지 요건으로 구성한다. 인공지능 영상의학 진료 검사에 따른 환자의 권리 침해 책임 구성 요건 간에 합리적인 인지 순서는 손해가 발생한 결과, 권리 침해행위, 인과관계 및 과실의 단계를 따른다.
인공지능 영상의학 보조 진료 때문에 발생한 손해배상이 관련된 책임의 주체를 어떻게 인정할 것인가에 대해서는 우선 중국 인공지능 영상의학 로봇의 법률 지위가 확립되어야만 한다. 긍정설, 부정설, 절충설 등이 대표적인데 궁극적으로는 스마트로봇이 인류가 창조하고 사람에게 서비스하도록 한 스마트화한 도구라는 것을 감안하면, 민사주체와 객체가 서로 이원화되어 분리된 물체로서 민사주체 자격을 구비하지 않는다는 견해가 설득력을 가질 수 있다.
대형병원 진료 모델의 책임 주체 인정 루트와 관련해서는 만약 영상의학과 의사가 잘못된 인공지능 영상의학에 근거하여 진단을 보고 받고 착오의 진료를 형성하여 환자에게 진료를 했다면, 이로 인해 환자에게 형성된 의료 권리 침해에 따른 손해는 세 가지 단계에 근거하여 책임 주체를 인정해야 한다. 첫째, 진료 책임 주체를 확정해야 한다. 둘째, 치료의 책임 주체를 확정해야 한다. 셋째, 이미 분명해진 진료의 책임 주체와 치료의 책임 주체가 환자에 대해 손해 배상책임을 공동 부담해야 한다. 원격의료 영상 진료 모델의 책임 주체 인정 루트에 대해서는 만약 원격진료 영상 진단 신청 병원과 접수를 수용하여 진료를 담당한 병원이 독립적인 민사책임 주체라면, 이런 상황이 조성한 의료사고에 따른 손해 책임 주체의 인정 경로는 아래와 같다. 첫째, 진료 시 책임 주체를 확정한다. 둘째, 치료 시 책임 주체를 분명히 해야 한다. 셋째, 이미 분명하게 확정된 진료 책임 주체와 치료 책임주체가 환자에 대해 공동으로 손해배상책임을 부담하도록 해야 한다. 의료 영상 전문 진료 모델의 책임 주체 인정 루트에 대해서는 진료 시 책임 주체를 확정해야 하고, 치료 시 책임 주체를 분명히 해야 한다.
또한 인공지능 영상의학의 진료에 따른 권리 침해로 발생한 손해배상책임이 다수의 책임 주체에게 분담금을 분배하는 것과 관련해서는 모든 권리침해행위가 전부손해를 조성하지는 않기 때문에 환자에 대한 개별적인 권리 침해행위에 따른 책임분담금을 부담하면 된다. 과실의 크기 또는 원인의 비율에 따라 각자 그에 상응하는 배상책임을 부담하는 것이 있고, 다른 하나는 동등책임이 있다. 종합비교방법을 종종 채택하여 손해를 조성한 구체적인 원인을 확정하는데 인공지능으로 진료를 한 원인, 의사가 치료한 원인, 환자 자신의 질병에 따른 원인, 의료사고, 환자의 특수 체질에 따른 원인 등이 그것이다. 다음으로, 각종 원인과 손해가 발생한 결과에 인과관계가 있었는지 그리고 손해가 발생한 결과와의 긴밀함 유무를 정확하게 분석해야 한다. 마지막으로, 각종 원인으로부터 특정 손해가 발생하는 비율을 분석하여 확정해야 한다. 이와 함께 진료 책임 주체와 치료 책임 주체가 환자에 대해 부담해야 하는 손해배상금액은 분명히 확정해야 한다. 그 후, 계속해서 진료 책임 주체 간에 분담금에 대해 배당을 실시할 필요가 있다. 인공지능 영상의학 보조 진료의 오진으로 발생하는 주요 원인은 일곱 가지가 있는 만큼, 서로 다른 원인에 근거하여 진료 착오의 서로 다른 책임 주체와 분담금을 확정하는 것은 피해자의 합법적인 권익 보호에 유리하게 작용하게 된다. 원인 규명이 어려운 오진에 따른 책임은 공평 원칙에 입각하여 인공지능 영상의학 로봇 소프트웨어 개발자, 설비제조상, 판매자와 설비 소유자, 설비 사용자가 가능한 한 최대한도로 균등하게 책임을 부담하는 것이 바람직하다.
개인의 창작성과를 인정받기 위한 저작권법의 개정 요구는 분명 설득력이 있다. 그러나 이를 악용하여 특정 발명자가 지나치게 거대한 사익을 편취하는 것은 의료기술의 공공성과 의료기술 응용에 제한을 가하게 된다. 따라서 인공지능 영상의학 진료에 따른 손해배상은 이론적으로 적절한 제한이 있는 것이 바람직하며 중국에 있는 국립병원을 많이 이용하는 것이 의료기술의 공공성 확보를 위해 더 좋은 결과를 도출할 수 있다. 이를 통해 중국 민간병원의 진료비 인하를 유도할 수 있기 때문이다. 또한 의료 손해배상 책임 확정 시 손해배상 정도에 따라 배상책임이 공정성과 합리성을 지니도록 확정해야 한다. 인공지능 영상의학 진료 결과에 따라 발생한 손해배상의 적절하면서도 합리적인 제한 규정은 아래 세 가지 제도를 통해 실현될 수 있다. 첫째, 정신적인 위로금 명목의 손해배상금에 대해서 상한선을 설정하고 정기적으로 배상금을 지불하는 방식을 추진하는 것이다. 둘째, 인과관계를 적용하여 손익 상계원칙을 추진하는 것이 필요시된다. 셋째, 강제보험제도와 무과실 의료 손해 보상제도를 강화해야 한다.
The AI radiology treatment process mainly includes four processes: data pre-processing, image segmentation, feature collection, and adequacy judgment. Artificial intelligence image treatment technology mainly has the following three functions. First, it improves the accuracy of radiology treatment. Second, it improves the efficiency of radiology treatment work. Third, there is a function to pioneer the field of radiology treat- ment application. At present, there are mainly three application models of AI imaging medical treatment technology in China. First, there is a large hospital radiology treatment model. Second, there is a tele- medicine radiology treatment model. Third, there is a model in which medical images are transferred to other hospitals for treatment. Regarding the infringement of common rights, the Chinese 「Rights Infringement Liability Law」 applies the concept of consultation, but it is limited to the infringement of the rights of multiple people. Infringement of the rights of multiple people is again classified into collective rights violations and individual rights violations. There is an effect that can expect fairness in liability for damages for infringement of rights according to artificial intelligence radiology treatment. First, infringement of rights according to AI radiology treatment does not have the basic characteristics of infringement of common rights. Second, the act of infringement of the rights of patients caused by artificial intelligence radiology treatment is objectively differentiated from the act of infringement of the rights of many people. Third, the infringement of rights created by AI radiology treatment for patients belongs to an indirect combination of individual rights rather than common rights in China's 「Right Violation Liability Act」 level. The components of liability for infringement of rights caused by AI-assisted medical care to patients are composed of four conditions: the result of damage, infringement of rights, causality and negligence. A reasonable order of recognition between the components of the patient's rights infringement liability according to the artificial intelligence radiology examination follows the steps of result of damage, infringement of rights, causality, and negligence. As for how to recognize the subject of liability related to compen- sation for damages caused by AI-assisted radiology, the legal status of AI-based radiology robots in China must first be established. Positive theory, negative theory, and compromise theory are representative. Ultimately, considering that smart robots are smart tools created by mankind and serviced by humans, civil subjects and objects are dualized and qualified as civil subjects as separate objects. The notion of not doing so may be more persuasive. Regarding the route of recognition of the responsible person in the treatment model of large hospitals, if a radiologist reports a diagnosis based on an incorrect AI radiology and treats a patient by forming an erroneous treatment, this will lead to a violation of the medical rights formed by the patient. The resulting damage must be recognized as a liability based on three steps. First, it is necessary to determine the person responsible for the treatment. Second, the person responsible for treatment must be determined. Third, the person responsible for treatment and the person responsible for treatment, which has already been clarified, should jointly bear the liability for damages to the patient. Regarding the route of recognition of the responsible person for the telemedicine imaging model, if the hospital receiving the application for telemedicine imaging diagnosis and the hospital in charge of the treatment are independent civil liability entities, the recognition of the person responsible for the damage caused by the medical accident created by this situation The path is as follows. First, the person responsible for treatment is determined. Second, the person responsible for treatment should be clearly defined. Third, the person responsible for treatment and the person responsible for treatment, which have already been clearly established, should jointly bear the liability for damages to the patient. For the route of recognition of the responsible person in the medical imaging specialized treatment model, the person responsible for treatment should be determined and the person responsible for treatment should be clearly defined. In addition, in relation to the distribution of the share of the liability for damages caused by the infringement of rights according to the treatment of artificial intelligence radiology to multiple responsible parties, since all infringements of rights do not create all damages, You have to pay your share of responsibility. Depending on the size of the negligence or the proportion of the cause, each person bears a corresponding liability for compensation, and the other has an equal liability. The comprehensive comparison method is often adopted to determine the specific cause of the damage. will be. Next, it is necessary to accurately analyze whether there is a causal relationship between the various causes and the result of the damage and whether there is a close relationship with the result of the damage. Finally, it is necessary to analyze and determine the rate at which specific damages occur from various causes. In addition, the amount of compensation that the person responsible for treatment and the person responsible for treatment should pay for the patient must be clearly determined. After that, it is necessary to continue to distribute dividends among the entities responsible for medical treatment. As there are seven main causes of misdiagnosis of artificial intelligence radiology-assisted treatment, determining different responsibilities and contributions for medical errors based on different causes is beneficial to protecting the legitimate rights and interests of victims. do. Based on the principle of fairness, it is desirable that the responsibility for a misdiagnosis that is difficult to identify the cause of should be equally borne as much as possible by software developers, equipment manu- facturers, sellers, equipment owners, and equipment users. The request for revision of the Copyright Act to be recognized for individual creative achievements is clearly persuasive. However, if a specific inventor exploits this to defraud an excessively large private interest, the publicity of medical technology and the application of medical technology are restricted. Therefore, it is desirable that there be an appropriate limit in theory for compensation for artificial intellig- ence radiology treatment, and using a lot of national hospitals in China can lead to better results for securing the publicity of medical tech- nology. This is because it can induce a reduction in the medical cost of private hospitals in China. In addition, when determining liability for medical damages, it should be determined so that the liability for compensation has fairness and reasonableness according to the degree of compensation. Appropriate and reasonable restrictions on damages incurred as a result of artificial intelligence radiology treatment can be realized through the following three systems. First, set an upper limit on the amount of compensation in the name of psychological consolation, and promote the method of paying compensation on a regular basis. Second, it is necessary to promote the principle of offsetting profit and loss by applying a causal relationship. Third, the compulsory insurance system and the no-fault medical damage compensation system should be strengthened.
The AI radiology treatment process mainly includes four processes: data pre-processing, image segmentation, feature collection, and adequacy judgment. Artificial intelligence image treatment technology mainly has the following three functions. First, it improves the accuracy of radiology treatment. Second, it improves the efficiency of radiology treatment work. Third, there is a function to pioneer the field of radiology treat- ment application. At present, there are mainly three application models of AI imaging medical treatment technology in China. First, there is a large hospital radiology treatment model. Second, there is a tele- medicine radiology treatment model. Third, there is a model in which medical images are transferred to other hospitals for treatment. Regarding the infringement of common rights, the Chinese 「Rights Infringement Liability Law」 applies the concept of consultation, but it is limited to the infringement of the rights of multiple people. Infringement of the rights of multiple people is again classified into collective rights violations and individual rights violations. There is an effect that can expect fairness in liability for damages for infringement of rights according to artificial intelligence radiology treatment. First, infringement of rights according to AI radiology treatment does not have the basic characteristics of infringement of common rights. Second, the act of infringement of the rights of patients caused by artificial intelligence radiology treatment is objectively differentiated from the act of infringement of the rights of many people. Third, the infringement of rights created by AI radiology treatment for patients belongs to an indirect combination of individual rights rather than common rights in China's 「Right Violation Liability Act」 level. The components of liability for infringement of rights caused by AI-assisted medical care to patients are composed of four conditions: the result of damage, infringement of rights, causality and negligence. A reasonable order of recognition between the components of the patient's rights infringement liability according to the artificial intelligence radiology examination follows the steps of result of damage, infringement of rights, causality, and negligence. As for how to recognize the subject of liability related to compen- sation for damages caused by AI-assisted radiology, the legal status of AI-based radiology robots in China must first be established. Positive theory, negative theory, and compromise theory are representative. Ultimately, considering that smart robots are smart tools created by mankind and serviced by humans, civil subjects and objects are dualized and qualified as civil subjects as separate objects. The notion of not doing so may be more persuasive. Regarding the route of recognition of the responsible person in the treatment model of large hospitals, if a radiologist reports a diagnosis based on an incorrect AI radiology and treats a patient by forming an erroneous treatment, this will lead to a violation of the medical rights formed by the patient. The resulting damage must be recognized as a liability based on three steps. First, it is necessary to determine the person responsible for the treatment. Second, the person responsible for treatment must be determined. Third, the person responsible for treatment and the person responsible for treatment, which has already been clarified, should jointly bear the liability for damages to the patient. Regarding the route of recognition of the responsible person for the telemedicine imaging model, if the hospital receiving the application for telemedicine imaging diagnosis and the hospital in charge of the treatment are independent civil liability entities, the recognition of the person responsible for the damage caused by the medical accident created by this situation The path is as follows. First, the person responsible for treatment is determined. Second, the person responsible for treatment should be clearly defined. Third, the person responsible for treatment and the person responsible for treatment, which have already been clearly established, should jointly bear the liability for damages to the patient. For the route of recognition of the responsible person in the medical imaging specialized treatment model, the person responsible for treatment should be determined and the person responsible for treatment should be clearly defined. In addition, in relation to the distribution of the share of the liability for damages caused by the infringement of rights according to the treatment of artificial intelligence radiology to multiple responsible parties, since all infringements of rights do not create all damages, You have to pay your share of responsibility. Depending on the size of the negligence or the proportion of the cause, each person bears a corresponding liability for compensation, and the other has an equal liability. The comprehensive comparison method is often adopted to determine the specific cause of the damage. will be. Next, it is necessary to accurately analyze whether there is a causal relationship between the various causes and the result of the damage and whether there is a close relationship with the result of the damage. Finally, it is necessary to analyze and determine the rate at which specific damages occur from various causes. In addition, the amount of compensation that the person responsible for treatment and the person responsible for treatment should pay for the patient must be clearly determined. After that, it is necessary to continue to distribute dividends among the entities responsible for medical treatment. As there are seven main causes of misdiagnosis of artificial intelligence radiology-assisted treatment, determining different responsibilities and contributions for medical errors based on different causes is beneficial to protecting the legitimate rights and interests of victims. do. Based on the principle of fairness, it is desirable that the responsibility for a misdiagnosis that is difficult to identify the cause of should be equally borne as much as possible by software developers, equipment manu- facturers, sellers, equipment owners, and equipment users. The request for revision of the Copyright Act to be recognized for individual creative achievements is clearly persuasive. However, if a specific inventor exploits this to defraud an excessively large private interest, the publicity of medical technology and the application of medical technology are restricted. Therefore, it is desirable that there be an appropriate limit in theory for compensation for artificial intellig- ence radiology treatment, and using a lot of national hospitals in China can lead to better results for securing the publicity of medical tech- nology. This is because it can induce a reduction in the medical cost of private hospitals in China. In addition, when determining liability for medical damages, it should be determined so that the liability for compensation has fairness and reasonableness according to the degree of compensation. Appropriate and reasonable restrictions on damages incurred as a result of artificial intelligence radiology treatment can be realized through the following three systems. First, set an upper limit on the amount of compensation in the name of psychological consolation, and promote the method of paying compensation on a regular basis. Second, it is necessary to promote the principle of offsetting profit and loss by applying a causal relationship. Third, the compulsory insurance system and the no-fault medical damage compensation system should be strengthened.
목차
등록된 정보가 없습니다.
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
환자의 진료의사선택에 따른 민사법적 과제
동북아법연구
2015 .01
-
인공지능 로봇의 오작동에 의한 사고로 인한 불법행위책임
민사법의 이론과 실무
2020 .01
-
의료행위에서의 설명의무와 민사책임
법이론실무연구
2023 .02
-
인공지능 로봇의 특허침해에 따른 책임
법학연구
2018 .06
-
원격협진과 관련한 원격의료의 개념과 법적 과제-독일의 논의를 중심으로-
의생명과학과법
2017 .01
-
인공지능(AI)의 무과실책임론
서강법률논총
2025 .02
-
중국 개정 저작권법상 저작권 침해 민사책임 - 징벌적 손해배상제도를 중심으로 -
계간 저작권
2021 .01
-
정신질환자의 범죄에 대한 국가배상책임: 국가배상에 관한 대법원 판례를 중심으로
민주법학
2022 .03
-
인공지능과 불법행위책임
정보법학
2021 .08
-
근로자의 업무수행 중 야기한 손해에 대한 노동법상 책임제한에 관한 소고(小考) : 판례를 중심으로
법학논총
2017 .01
-
코로나 2년에 비대면 진료 350만건 ‘원격 진료’ 물꼬 텄다
매경이코노미
2022 .03
-
인공지능과 불법행위책임 법리
법학연구
2018 .05
-
의료분쟁조정위원회의 역할조정을 통한 국제진료 활성화 방안
중재연구
2017 .01
-
인공지능 로봇에 의한 손해의 불법행위책임
법학연구
2017 .01
-
초․중등학생 보호자의 권리 유형과 침해에 대한 민사적 구제
민주법학
2018 .01
-
[TOPIC] 선진국 벤치마킹해 따라갈까 : ‘국민 만족’(88%) 비대면 진료…5월이면 불법?
매경이코노미
2023 .04
-
특허권침해에서 손해배상책임에 대한 입증책임분배에 관한 연구
공공정책연구
2018 .01
-
코로나 바이러스 전파와 손해배상책임
비교사법
2022 .11
-
지식재산권 침해로 인한 손해배상책임에 있어서 무과실책임의 법리 도입 필요성과 그 방향
지식재산연구
2022 .06
-
의료 인공지능의 활용을 둘러싼 법적 과제: 규제의 진화 및 책임의 배분을 중심으로
비교사법
2022 .11
이 논문의 저자 정보
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0