IBM이 개발인 인공지능 기술인 Watson은 미국의 인기 텔레비전 퀴즈쇼인 “Jeopardy!”에서 우승을 차지하며 화려하게 데뷔하였다. 그 후 Watson은 의료 분야로 눈을 돌렸고, 의사가 환자의 정보를 입력하면 방대한 양의 의학 문헌 및 임상 자료 등을 약 7-8초 만에 검색한 뒤 의사에게 진단명 및 치료방법 등을 권고하여 주는 인공지능 시스템인 Watson for Oncology 등의 서비스를 제공하고 있다. 우리나라에서도 이미 Watson for Oncology(왓슨)를 도입하여 사용 중에 있는 다수의 병원이 있고, 현재까지의 활용 상황을 보면 환자들은 왓슨이 내어 놓은 결과를 매우 신뢰하는 것으로 보인다. 그러나 인공지능 시스템 또한 완전무결한 것은 아니고 오류의 가능성을 가지고 있는바, 실제로 당해 환자에게 맞지 않는 진단명이나 치료방법을 제시할 가능성을 배제할 수 없고 그로 인한 의료분쟁의 가능성 또한 충분하다. 이 글에서는 왓슨을 활용한 의료행위로 인하여 환자에게 손해가 발생할 경우 환자의 구제 수단에 관하여 개괄적으로 논의하였다. 우선 환자가 왓슨의 제조사인 IBM을 상대로 한 의료과실책임, 제조물책임, 계약상책임을 물을 수 있는지에 관하여 검토하였으나, 이는 불가능할 것으로 생각된다. 다음으로 환자의 의사에 대한 주의의무 위반, 설명의무 위반을 이유로 한 손해배상청구에 관하여 검토하였는데, 현재의 왓슨은 의사에게 치료방법 등에 관하여 조언을 하는 기능에 머무를 뿐이므로 왓슨을 활용하였다고 하여 주의의무, 설명의무를 가중할 것은 아니다.

By Medical Service Law(below, abbr as ‘Law’), the medical institutions should be established and run by ‘the doctors or the qualified persons’(below, abbr as ‘doctors’), who are permitted by the related laws. And there is a case such as non-doctors establish the institutions, hire doctors and run the institutions, or non-doctors and doctors co-establish the institutions and run the institutions. This kind of act is treated as violations under Law. When, in their running the institutions, doctors treat the patients, which means doctors give the patients the medical care in place of National Health Insurance Service(below, abbr as NHIS), doctors ask the costs of the medical care to NHIS. If the costs of the medical treatment(the medical care) do not exist or are exaggerated, the act of asking the costs will constitute Fraud. But if doctors in such institutions described above treat the patients fairly, and then ask NHIS the costs with no falsity or exaggeration, does that act constitute Fraud? This kind of act has not been treated as Fraud until 2013. But from the second half of 2013, this kind of act has been prosecuted as Fraud. Is that prosecution right? Is it guilty as Fraud? Medical treatment has a broad effecion on the health and welfare of people, so business mind should be excluded from medical treatment. And Law has regulations on the qualification of establishing the institutions to prevent the substantial distortion of medical treatment. But if doctors’ treatment is true, which means there is no falsity or exaggeration in medical treatment, then there can not exist the substantial distortion. And the article 57 ① of Law regulates ‘trick or the other undue method’, but I think this kind of act does not conform to the article 57 ① of Law. And even if this kind of act conforms to the article 57 ① of Law, it does not mean that it is Fraud. Because Fraud has the strong character of mala in se, transcendentally the act of Fraud should be evaluated anti-social and immoral. But this kind of act can not be assessed anti-social and immoral transcendentally. And the criminal control on this kind of act can not be the fundamental measure to prevent the financial aggravation of NHIS. And because this kind of act is treated as violations under Law, if the punishment of Fraud is added, it could violate the principle of proportion or principle of subsidiarity.

The Supreme Court held that a physical therapist's performance of Oriental physical therapy without supervision of doctor or dental doctor was unlicensed medical practice under the Medical Services Law, and the Oriental medicine doctor who had directed the physical therapist with such act was charged as an accomplice. However, under the current Medical Services Law, which differentiates between Western and Oriental medical practices, the Oriental physical therapy performed by the physical therapist was outside the duty of physical therapists; thus it should have been recognized as unlicensed medical practice under that respect. The current case led to confusion as to the boundaries of licensed medical practices, because the Supreme Court had failed to make clear determination on the medical practice performed by the physical therapist. With advancement of science and technology, the boundaries of medical practice among medical doctors, dental doctors, and Oriental medicine doctors, as well as the boundaries of medical practice and non-medical practice have blurred. Previous Supreme Court cases had interpreted medical practice broadly, which include illness treatment, prevention as well as activities harmful to public health. As such broad interpretation can hinder specialization and effectiveness, those areas with low or no public heath threats should be limited to medical practitioners with specialized knowledge and skills. Moreover, the areas that overlap among the medical practitioners should be determined as to whether they are within the boundaries of licensed areas in accordance with the purpose of the Medical Services Law, which is the advancement of citizens’ health.