An Analysis of the Case of Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis (TEN): Focusing on Informed Consent Doctrine and Medical Negligence
By reviewing the Supreme Court Judgment No.505 (2017) and its procedural history, this article explores the connotations of medical negligence and the violation of informed consent doctrine. When determining the negligence of a physician, we should examine whether a physician has met the standard of a reasonable physician in the process of making a diagnosis, performing medical treatments, and evaluating the effect of the treatments. On the other hand, the doctrine of informed consent does not relate to medical negligence. It is a process in which a physician transfers the inherent risks of medical treatments, including the invasion of the right to autonomy and even body rights, to the patient. Conceptually, it serves as a justification or defense for tort liability, and is applicable in all sorts of medical treatments, not being limited to invasive medical procedures. By reviewing the concepts of medical negligence and informed consent doctrine, this article reexamines the facts and judgments of the case. It stresses the importance of discussing “whether there is a negligence that causes damage” and “whether the doctrine of informed consent has been generally implemented” separately. Besides, this article suggests that we should clarify issues by focusing specifically on each point on the timeline of the entire incident.