Probability of criminal punishment of physicians in Korea is remarkably higher than in Japan and France
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Is the criminal prosecution of physicians in Korea excessive?Recently, a Korean government report-commissioned by the Ministry of Health and Welfare (MOHW) and conducted by the Korea Institute for Health and Social Affairs-examined the criminal prosecution of physicians in Korea [1].On average, 38 criminal trials took place annually. Korea's 38 cases: among the highest global rates of criminal trialsThis figure is striking.Even acknowledging the research limitations and the report's scope, the finding that 34 physicians are criminally prosecuted each year for adverse medical outcomes is significant.A straightforward international comparison suggests that, in a country with about 100,000 practicing physicians, 38 prosecutions annually for medical-related incidents places Korea among the highest in the world.For example, although the data are older, one review indicated that the province of Ontario, Canada, recorded only one case in 108 years in which a physician was criminally convicted for a medical incidentan anesthesiologist who self-reported leaving their post, resulting in a medical accident [2].Apart from this case, there are no verifiable instances of criminal prosecution for medical-related incidents in Ontario.Table 1 compares outcomes of first-instance criminal trials for occupational negligence resulting in death or injury among physicians in Korea-based on a complete enumeration by the Korean Medical Association Research Institute for Healthcare Policy (RIHP)-with those in Japan and the United Kingdom.Between 1999 and 2016 (18 years), Japan recorded 202 first-instance criminal judgments against physicians for occupational negligence resulting in death or injury, of which only 32 resulted in convictions-an average of 1.8 per year.Moreover, Japan's scope included the management and supervision of medical assistants as well as the operation of medical equipment, suggesting that the number of cases involving purely medical malpractice is likely smaller.In Commonwealth and Nordic countries-often highlighted as examples of robust public healthcare systems-criminal prosecutions of physicians are so rare that official statistics are almost nonexistent.A fairly recent UK judiciary report recorded only four physician convictions over a 6year period [3,4].Fig. 1 presents the relative average number of criminal trials for occupational negligence resulting in death or injury by physicians, normalized to the United Kingdom as 1. Differences in legal systems are not a sufficient explanationA h e a d o f p r i n t
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".