Journal of Hospice and Palliative Care

Korean Society for Hospice and Palliative Care (한국호스피스완화의료학회)
권호 표지

Attitude of Korean Lawyers toward Withdrawal of Life Sustaining Treatment

한국 변호사들의 연명치료중단에 대한 태도

  • Lee, Gyeong-Nam (Department of Nursing, Koje College, University) ;
  • Kim, Boon-Han (Department of Nursing, Hanyang University) ;
  • Lee, Hun-Hee (Research Center for Health & Welfare, Institute for Self-Government)
  • 이경남 (거제대학 간호과) ;
  • 김분한 (한양대학교 간호학과) ;
  • 이훈희 ((사)한국자치행정연구원 보건의료센터)
  • Received : 2009.11.30
  • Accepted : 2010.01.18
  • Published : 2010.06.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: This study was conducted to study the attitude of Korean lawyers toward withdrawal of life sustaining treatment, and compare and analyze different types of their attitudes. Methods: Research design of this project was Q methodology approach. The study population was 24 lawyers, aged from 32 to 69 years. Q sample to investigate the attitude of the lawyers toward withdrawal of life sustaining treatment included 34 statements obtained from literatures, TV debate, and depth interviews of 5 lawyers among the lawyers included. After listening to the purpose and method of the study, the 24 lawyers agreed to fill out a survey asking sociodemographic information, and the information was distributed in 9 scale Q-sample. Results: The collected data were processed through QUANL PC program and sorted into 5 types as follows: The first type was 'Choosing to withdraw life sustaining treatment', the second 'Withholding life sustaining treatment' regardless of the cost, the third is neutral type that claims that humans have the right to decide the death and life, and demands the proper legalization to protect such rights, the fourth type agrees to withdrawal of life sustaining treatment, nevertheless, admits that one has a rigt to withhold one's own life treatment, categorized as self contradiction type. The fifth type believed that 'Life and death are providential' with the faith, therefore, such authority to decide life and death belongs to God, but not human beings. Conclusion: In conclusion, the lawyer's attitudes toward withdrawal of life sustaining treatment were grouped into five different types as follows: 'Choosing to withdraw life sustaining treatment', 'Withholding life sustaining treatment', 'Demanding legalization', 'Self contradiction type', and 'Life and death are providential'.

목적: 본 연구는 연명치료중단에 대한 한국변호사들의 태도유형을 구분하고, 각 유형별 특성과 유형별 차이점을 파악하는 주관성 연구를 위해 실시되었다. 방법: 본 연구 설계는 Q 방법론을 이용하였다. 본 연구의 대상자는 32~69세의 변호사 24명을 대상으로 하였다. 연명치료중단에 대한 태도 유형을 확인하기 위한 Q 표본은 이들 중 5인을 대상으로 한 심층면담, 문헌고찰, TV토론을 통해 확보하여 34문항의 진술문을 구성하였다. 대상자에게 연구의 목적과 방법을 설명하여 동의를 구한 후 인구사회학적 특성을 파악하기 위한 질문지를 작성하였고, 9점 Q 표본 분포도상에 강제 분포하도록 하였다. 결과: 수집된 자료는 QUANL PC 프로그램으로 처리하여 최종적으로 유형을 구분하였다. 그 결과 5가지 유형이 구분되었으며, 제1유형은 연명치료중단에 대한 확고한 신념이 있는 '연명치료중단 선택형', 제2유형은 비용이 얼마나 소요되든지 생명연장술을 시행하여야 한다는 '생명연장술 추구형', 제3유형은 연명치료중단이나 생명연장술이나 모두 인간의 권리에 해당하며, 이런 권리를 충분히 행사하기 위해 제도적 장치를 요구하는 '제도요구형', 제4유형은 연명치료중단에 동의를 하지만, 본인은 연명치료중단을 선택하지 않을 것이라는 모순된 태도를 보이는 '자기모순형', 제5유형은 생명은 하나님만이 판단할 수 있다고 하고, 인간에게는 죽음을 선택할 권리가 없다는 '인명재천형'으로 분석되었다. 결론: 연명치료중단에 대한 한국 변호사들의 태도는, 제1유형 '연명치료중단 선택형', 제2유형 '생명연장술 추구형', 제3유형 '제도요구형', 제4유형 '자기모순형', 제5유형 '인명재천형'으로 나타났다.

Keywords

References

  1. Yu HJ. The basis and conditions of justified withdrawing or withholding of persistence-treatment. Korean J Med Ethics Educ 2002;5(2):151-68.
  2. Sohn MS. Ethical and legal aspect of termination of hospital care. J Korean Med Assoc 1998;41(7):707-11.
  3. Esteban A, Gordo F, Solsona JF, Alia I, Caballero J, Bouza C, et al. Withdrawing and withholding life support in the intensive care unit: a Spanish prospective multi-centre observational study. Intensive Care Med 2001;27(11):1744-9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-001-1111-7
  4. Kim SY, Kang HH, Koh YS, Koh SO. Attitudes and practices of critical care physicians in end-of-life. Korean J Med Ethics 2009;12(1):15-28.
  5. Kim HK. Understanding of Q methodology for subjectivity research. The Seoul J of Nursing 1992;6(1):1-11.
  6. Brown SR, Durning DW, Selden SC. Q methodology. In: Gerald JM, Marcia LW, eds. Handbook of research methods in public administration. 1st ed. New York:Marcel Dekker, cop;1999. p. 599-637.
  7. Jeon SY. A study on the attitude of the people toward euthanasia. Journal of KSSSS 2009;18:125-38.
  8. Park YO. The experience of family members on deciding to withdraw life-sustaining treatment for patients who are terminally ill [dissertation]. Seoul: Yonsei Univ.; 2003. Korean.
  9. Kim SH, Lee HR. General population's view on euthanasia. Korean J Hosp Palliat Care 2003;6(2):133-43.
  10. Lee JC, Chen PP, Yeo JK, So HY. Hong Kong Chinese teachers' attitudes towards life-sustaining treatment in the dying patients. Hong Kong Med J 2003;9(3):186-91.
  11. Radulovic S, Mojsilovic S. Attitudes of oncologists, family doctors, medical students and lawyers to euthanasia. Support Care Cancer 1998;6(4):410-5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s005200050185