수술환자의 권리보호에 대한 형사법적 쟁점 - 환자의 자기결정권을 중심으로 -

A Criminal Legal Study in the Protecting the Right of Surgical Patients - Self-Determination of Patients -

수술행위는 신체에 대한 침습을 포함하는 것이므로 의료인은 수술주체와 수술행위의 내용을 충분히 설명하여 환자가 그 수술을 받을 것인지의 여부를 선택하도록 하여야 하고, 이는 헌법 제10조에서 규정한 개인의 인격권과 행복추구권에 의하여 보호되는 환자의 자기결정권에 해당한다. 미국에서는 '대리수술'의 경우 폭행에 해당한다고 판단한 사례가 있으나, 국내에서는 아직까지 수술의사에 대한 상해죄 등을 인정한 사례가 없고, 수술행위는 환자의 신체에 대한 적대적인 손상행위가 아니므로 상해죄로 처벌하기 어려운 면이 있다. 또한 환자의 '가정적 승낙'을 폭넓게 인정하는 판례의 입장에 따르면 의사의 전단적 의료행위에 대하여 업무상과실치사상죄로 처벌하기도 어려우므로, 환자의 자기결정권 강화를 위하여 의사의 설명의무를 의료법 등에 명문화하고, 대리수술 등 전단적 의료행위에 대하여 별도의 처벌규정을 입법화할 필요가 있다.

Recently, Practicing of ghost surgery and duty of informed consent of doctors have become a big issue in the medical dispute and lawsuits. The ground of admitting the informed consent and the agreement(self-determination of patients) can be based on the dignity of man and the right to pursue his happiness guaranteed under Article 10 of the constitution in theory. However there are no explicit legal regulations on the duty of the informed consent and there is no substantive legal enactment on the informed consent, but there is a collision between self-determination of patients and the discretionary power of doctors. If the discretionary power on the duty of the informed consent was extended it may result in the infringement of the right of surgical patients, so called arbitrary medical treatment. Relating to this issue, New Jersey Supreme Court held that a patient has the right to determine not only whether surgery is to be performed on him, but also who shall perform it. Moreover it held that a surgeon who operates without the patient's consent engages in the unauthorized touching of another and, thus, commits a battery'. But there are no ghost surgery cases adopting battery theory in Korea, and professional negligence has been considered rather than the battery, regarding an absence of hostile intent to injure patient. Supreme Court of Korea held that a doctor who operates a medical procedure without the patient's valid prior consent based on wrong diagnosis commits professional negligence resulting in injury, and the patient's invalid consent do not preclude wrongfulness'. However, if a health care provider conducts a completely non-consensual treatment or substitute surgeon without consent, the action should be plead in battery, not negligence, but if a health care provider violate his duty of care in obtaining the consent of the patient by failing to disclosure all relevant information (risks) that a reasonable person would deem significant in making a decision to have the procedure, the action should be plead in negligence, not battery. Therefore, the scope of patients' self-determination can be protected by stating clearly the scope of the duty of the informed consent and the exemption of the informed consent legislatively, it is considered that it is valid to legislate the limitation of the discretionary power.