Browse > Article

Attitude of Korean Lawyers toward Withdrawal of Life Sustaining Treatment  

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)
Publication Information
Journal of Hospice and Palliative Care / v.13, no.2, 2010 , pp. 81-88 More about this Journal
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'.
Keywords
Withholding treatment; Lawyers; Q-sort; Nursing methodology research;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
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.   DOI   ScienceOn
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.   DOI   ScienceOn