This study analyzed 22 criminal cases involving obstetricians and gynecologists to identify legal trends and propose measures to reduce the legal burden on medical professionals while maintaining stable healthcare services. The cases were retrieved from the Supreme Court of Korea Judicial Information Disclosure Portal using keywords such as “obstetrics,” “gynecology,” “expectant mother,” “fetus,” “neonate,” “delivery,” “uterus,” and “placenta.” The cases were classified into two categories:medical malpractice (16 cases, 72.7%) and abortion and bioethics (6 cases, 27.3%). Guilty verdicts were issued in 8 cases (36.4%), whereas 14 cases (63.6%) resulted in acquittal. The qualitative analysis showed that courts consistently protected physicians’ clinical discretion in unpredictable and unavoidable situations, such as amniotic fluid embolism and uterine atony, provided that standard medical protocols were followed. Procedural appropriateness, rather than the perfection of clinical outcomes, appeared to be the primary basis for judicial protection. Although the judiciary acknowledges the inherent limitations of medical practice and tends to protect physicians when established guidelines are followed, the high frequency of criminal prosecution remains a substantial burden on healthcare providers and may threaten the sustainability of obstetric care.

This paper examines the ethical and constitutional limits of public health authority when infection control measures restrict access to essential medical treatment during infectious disease crises.Drawing on legal and bioethical scholarship and the case of MERS patient #80 in South Korea, we assess whether the prolonged isolation that suspended life-sustaining cancer therapy met standards of scientific justification and proportionality. The case underscores a key distinction between measures aimed at preventing transmission and measures that result in the denial of treatment for serious, unrelated conditions. Using the Siracusa Principles and the requirement of least restrictive means as a normative framework, we argue that restrictions on liberty must be lawful, necessary, and grounded in clear evidence of public health benefit. We also invoke H. L. A. Hart’s principle of fairness as a complementary lens for evaluating how the burdens of public health measures are distributed.Although individuals may have a moral duty to comply with infection control policies, such a duty presupposes that no group bears disproportionate, avoidable harm. We conclude that, even during public health emergencies, suspending non-deferrable, life-preserving treatment demands especially strong justification. Ethical and constitutional legitimacy depends not only on effective disease control but also on safeguarding access to essential medical care.

This study aims to develop a standardized informed consent system for whole-genome sequencing (WGS)-based newborn screening (NBS) in Korea through a policy design approach grounded in the domestic legal and policy context. We conducted an integrated literature review of international norms, domestic legal frameworks, guidelines, and major overseas WGS-based NBS programs using a common analytical framework. To develop a consent model feasible in the Korean context, we also analyzed stakeholder evidence from parent interviews and a clinician survey focused on consentrelated issues. The findings indicate that the current Korean legal and institutional framework does not adequately address long-term storage, reanalysis, recontact, and the transfer of decision-making authority as the child matures. Based on these findings, we propose a Korean informed consent model consisting of a staged consent pathway spanning antenatal, postnatal, and adulthood-related decision points; tiered consent options for the return of results; and safeguards against disadvantage or discrimination related to participation, non-participation, or withdrawal. The study further suggests that implementation will require broader legal and procedural clarification across the relevant regulatory framework, along with the continued development of education and counseling strategies.

This article explores how the traditional framework of research ethics must be redefined in response to the ethical challenges posed by the academic use of generative artificial intelligence (Gen AI).As Gen AI technologies become increasingly integrated across various stages of research—from study design and data analysis to manuscript writing—they offer notable gains in efficiency, while simultaneously expanding ethical gray areas. In particular, issues such as factual inaccuracies and hallucinations, violations of privacy and copyright, ambiguous authorship, and the deskilling of researchers are becoming increasingly entangled, posing serious threats to the credibility and integrity of academic work. To address these concerns, the article proposes four core ethical principles suited to the Gen AI era: truthfulness and explainability, respect for intellectual property, field-specific guidelines, and the cultivation of researcher competence. The central concern is not merely whether such technologies should be adopted, but rather how the identity and responsibility of researchers, and the sustainability of scholarly communities, can be ethically restructured in the face of transformative technological change.

Medical practice is a multi-layered phenomenon characterized by systemic complexity, epistemic uncertainty, and outcome‑oriented nature. However, legal discourse in medical litigation often reduces this complexity by employing active/passive grammatical constructions, framing clinician– patient interactions in terms of a simplistic offender/victim binary. In response, this article introduces the concept of the middle-voice, defined by two grammatical features: (1) the internal involvement of human and non-human elements in the occurrence of action, and (2) the dynamic emergence of action through contextual interactions. It proposes a middle-voice structure that incorporates antecedent-condition clauses, inanimate subject constructions, and the Korean “-ge doeda” form (equivalent to the English verb “become”). This framework supports the development of middlevoice justice, which moves beyond adversarial models and promotes a more inclusive culture of medical accountability and safety. By offering a theoretical basis for institutional applications, such as in the design of apology laws, this approach enables more accurate descriptions of medical accidents, more balanced attributions of responsibility, and reconsideration of the institutional foundations necessary for a just medical culture.

The increasing use of human biospecimens and health data in research raises ethical and legal concerns regarding privacy, consent, and ownership. This study examined public awareness, attitudes, and concerns related to biospecimen and health data in South Korea. A nationwide online survey was conducted with 500 adults, stratified by region, age, and gender. The questionnaire assessed awareness levels, donation experience, motivations, and concerns related to biospecimen and health data donation. Statistical analyses using SPSS (version 29) included chi-square tests across demographic variables such as gender, age, education, and occupation. Awareness of biospecimen donation was moderate for biomedical research (55.2%) but lower for industrial research (42.2%).Awareness of biobanks was low (21.4%). Willingness to donate was higher for biomedical research (biospecimens 54.0%, health data 50.6%) than for industrial purposes (48.2%, 43.8%). The main motivations included humanitarian concerns and public benefit, while major concerns focused on privacy and physical discomfort. Most participants (72.2%) preferred detailed consent. Men were more willing to donate and expressed more favorable attitudes toward biospecimen and health data donation than women. The findings indicate moderate public awareness and willingness to donate biospecimens and health data, alongside persistent concerns about privacy, ownership, and compensation. Enhancing ethical governance and public engagement is essential to building trust in biobank-based research.

The evidence advisory system (EAS) is often criticized for serving to legitimize governmentpreferred policies rather than facilitating independent deliberation. Underlying this critique is a more fundamental question: Is expertise compatible with democratic governance? This article addresses that question by advancing two arguments in support of democratic expertise. First, drawing on theories of deliberative democracy, it argues that the epistemic authority of experts depends largely on the active judgment of citizens. The formation of expert consensus, which is central to EAS operations, is discussed as a working example. Second, using the framework of the politics of evidence, it contends that the legitimacy of the EAS hinges on institutional arrangements that enable the effective and democratic use of evidence. Together, these arguments clarify how ordinary citizens can develop the deliberative capacities needed to engage critically with expert knowledge.

This article examines the problem of ghost surgeries in South Korea, which gained national attention following the death of Kwon Dae-hee and led to revisions in the Medical Service Act, including a government mandate for video surveillance in operating rooms. While ghost surgeries have been discussed in legal and academic circles, there has been a lack of analysis from the perspective of actual clinical practice. In South Korea, ghost surgeries vary widely depending on the type of hospital, the person replacing the primary surgeon, and the underlying motivation. In teaching hospitals, surgeries performed by residents or fellows during training can be misinterpreted as ghost surgeries, creating a legal and ethical gray area. Despite stricter training regulations, there are still no clear, standardized guidelines for surgical education. Accordingly, this article argues that the relevant authorities—such as the Ministry of Health and Welfare, surgical societies, and medical education institutions—should examine international models and develop clear principles for resident and fellow participation in surgery. This would help ensure informed patient consent, protect medical trainees, promote ethical practices, and ultimately contribute to greater transparency, enhanced surgical education, and a safer healthcare environment for both patients and providers.

This descriptive correlational study aimed to examine the impact of moral courage and ethical climate on moral distress among clinical nurses. Data were collected from August to September 2024, through an online survey distributed to nurses working at two tertiary hospitals and one general hospital in a city in South Korea. The results indicate that the mean moral courage, ethical climate and moral distress were 3.20 ± 0.58, 3.42 ± 0.52, and 78.22 ± 53.89, respectively. Multiple regression revealed that factors affecting moral distress among clinical nurses included years of clinical experience (β=.23, p=.014), moral courage (ß=.40, p<.001) and ethical climate (β=-.44, p<.001).These variables explained 22% of the variance in moral distress. These findings suggest that there is a need for institutional strategies to improve the ethical climate and to support nurses' moral courage in order to alleviate moral distress.

This article critically evaluates Korea's current mandatory, time-based clinical trial education system in light of the rapidly changing global clinical trial landscape and international best practices. It identifies key limitations and proposes a strategic shift towards a Competency-Based Education (CBE) model to enhance the quality, safety, and national competitiveness of clinical trials. By analyzing the new competencies required by technological innovations such as Decentralized Clinical Trials (DCTs) and Artificial Intelligence (AI), as well as the latest ICH GCP E6(R3) guideline, and by comparing Korea's system with the educational frameworks of the United States, United Kingdom, and European Union, this article diagnoses the shortcomings of the current system, including its rigidity, emphasis on compliance over competence, and misalignment with global trends. As a solution, the article explains the necessity of adopting a CBE model and offers specific policy directions based on the internationally recognized Joint Task Force (JTF) for Clinical Trial Competency framework. The proposals presented here aim to improve the quality of clinical trials in Korea, enhance participant safety, and ultimately contribute to building an ethical, efficient, and globally competitive clinical trial ecosystem.