• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.9 no.1
• /
• pp.413-459
• /
• 2008

The Law has intervened to define rare circumstances in which a person should choose continuing life in United States. On the one hand, the law has traditionally acted to preservelife and to respect the sanctity of life. On the other hand, one's control over one's own body, and the right to determine what kind of medical care one will receive, is equally well respected and historically grounded. The competent patients have the right to forgo life-sustaining treatment, courts in United States have left many unanswered questions about the nature of that right. The right to choose to forgo life-sustaining treatment is a manifestation of a patient's autonomy interest. In United States, The Karen Quilan case gave rise to legislative activity in the host of state capitals, and several states had adopted statutes that formally recognized some forms of written directives describing some circumstances in which certain kinds of medical care could be terminated. These statues were sometimes dominated 'living will' acts, sometimes 'right to die' acts and ocasionally 'natural death' acts. Today virtually every state has produced a living will statue. In Korea, courts do not permit a terminally ill person to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment. Living wills apply in case of terminal illness owing to a defect in legislation. Now In Korea, these lively dispute of legal policy on the preconditions and concrete procedure of living will act and natural death act. Through the legislation of living will act and natural death act, we should prepare some circumstances to respect patient's autonomy on the right to die. We should frame the cultural standard to make a decision of forgoing life-sustainin1g treatment under the discreet procedure.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.11 no.2
• /
• pp.239-274
• /
• 2010

Advance directive refers to a description of the treatment method a patient wants to be provided with in case where the person is unconscious or lacks an ability to decision making in a future period or a declaration of intention that delegates and appoints another person who makes a decision regarding a treatment method on behalf of the person. Advance directive is usually a document form, but oral statement is acceptable as well. Advance directive may have a variety of forms though, it basically consists of two basic forms. That is, one is a living will, and the other is a surrogate decision making. Though the importance of advance directive has been emphasized, and the necessity of adopting the system has been strongly argued for so far, the debates on criteria, method, and procedure alike have not yet reached an agreement. It is because even the concept of advance directive is more or less ambiguous, and each specific method has its own theoretical limitations and practical constraints. Thus the inquiries on advance directive raised in the study are summarized as the meaning, practicability, and philosophical foundation of the advance directive. Firstly, the theoretical limitations of Advance directive may be categorized into conceptual and moral limitations. In case of conceptual limitations, authors of advance directives may not be well aware, in advance, of the particular situation in which he or her will experience in the future, and patients may experience the change in his or her values and lack the understanding and information about the future situation due to the changes in treatment methods. In case of moral limitations, a patient has a limited moral autonomy right and self identity that have an impact on his or her preference. Secondly, in case of practical constraints for advance directive, there exist cultural features, low ratio of documentation, as patients themselves admit, and low predictability and stability of patient's own preference regarding life-sustaining care. And the problem of validity and accuracy in proxy's decision making is also raised. Those who administer a living will, especially, may have a difficulty in understanding the directive by a patient, so that the accuracy of execution cannot be secured. In the sense, it is needed to implement a legal device in order to solve such problems. In summary, it is urgently required to understand the limitations and explore desired alternatives to overcome the relevant problems in advance, which must contribute to successfully adopting and effectively operating the advance directive system in Korea.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.14 no.1
• /
• pp.355-401
• /
• 2013

The first legislation for terminal health-care decision was California's Natural Death Act (NDA) of 1976 that permitted any adult person to execute a directive directing the withholding or withdrawal of life-sustaining procedures. Advance directive legislation has subsequently progressed on a state-by-state basis. By 1992, all 50 states, as well as the District of Columbia, had passed legislation to legalize some form of advance directive. This state legislation, however, has resulted in an often fragmented, incomplete, and sometimes inconsistent set of rules. Statutes enacted within a state often conflict and conflicts between statutes of different states are common. In an increasingly mobile society where an advance health-care directive given in one state must frequently be implemented in another, there is a need for greater uniformity. In 1993, the Uniform Law Commissioners approved the Uniform Health-Care Decisions Act (UHCDA) in order to bring order to the existing chaos. Unfortunately, the Commissioners waited too long to act. By the time the UHCDA was approved, nearly all states had passed legislation governing advance directives. Consequently, the UHCDA has achieved only a limited success, picking up but one or two enactments a year. The UHCDA is currently in effect in around 10 states: Alabama, Alaska, California, Delaware, Hawaii, Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, New Mexico, Tennessee, Wyoming. In these states the previous laws related to the subjects have been all repealed. The overall objective of the UHCDA is to encourage the making and enforcement of advance health care directives including living will or individual instruction, power of health-care attorney and to provide a means for making health care decisions for those who have failed to plan. The U. S. House of Representatives in 1991 enacted the Patient Self-Determination Act (PSDA). The Act stipulates that all hospitals receiving Medicaid or Medicare reimbursement must ascertain whether patients have or wish to have advance directives. The Patient Self- Determination Act does not create or legalize advance directives; rather it validates their existence in each of the states. Now in America, terminal health-care decision or advance directive for health care is common and universal system. The problem, however, is how to let more people use these good tools to make their lives more beautiful and honorable.

• 한국노년학
• /
• v.30 no.4
• /
• pp.1197-1211
• /
• 2010

This research was concucted to present a model of advance directives(AD) when a patient, who is in consciousness, shows a preference for an end of life care as an act of preparing for an uncertain situation that may arise in the forseeable future. The subjects of the research are 383 doctors/nurese and adults, who live in six cities and provinces, to investigate the status of AD, attitude regarding a meaningless life-prolonging treatment, and moreover, an understanding of and a preference for AD. The research was done by the well-structured questionnaire. Also, SPSS 14.0 is used to analyse the collected data, focused on frequency analysis, avearage and standard deviation, X2 test. As the results of the study, the most of the surveyed doctors/nurese knew DNR orders and AD and a few of them used DNR orders and AD practically. Also, the result shows that there is a negative conception of meaningless life-prolonging treatment among the responents, in addition, most of them agreed upon the idea of introducing AD to Korea, filling it out and making it legally effective. As a method of making AD out, the respondents wanted to use a form that mixed living will with an Power of Attorney in a document. Also, considering the appropriate time, respondents prefered when they are diagnosed with terminal illness. At the moment, the introductory model for AD, which is suitable for the Korean culture and current situation is presented based on the result of this research. In the future, other researches should deal with specific measures that can lead to a social consensus to adopt AD in Korea.

• The Korean Journal of Archival Studies
• /
• no.72
• /
• pp.165-203
• /
• 2022

Many people create records in digital space, and the amount of digital records left after individual dies has increased. The digital record left by the deceased is different from the record heritage that has physical substances. In many cases, the records of the deceased not just belong to the deceased, and many deceased did not explicitly disclose their online accounts and method of dispose of digital records during their lifetime, so this problem may lead to problems of inheritance to the bereaved family. In addition, digital records may be neglected or deleted after a person's death due to software problems, specific platform's terms of use, account deletion by bereaved family, etc. This leads to the problem that daily records, which are important clues to the social aspects at the time, are easily lost. Several studies have revealed that individuals are interested in preserving their digital records, but do not know how to do it, so they are benign neglect. For this reason, it is necessary to pay attention to personal digital records and personal digital legacy, and to prepare related policies and plans. Accordingly, this study analyzes problems related to the management of digital records after an individual's death, related to laws and systems, the status and policies of platforms and industries, the status of personal record management, etc. Various solutions were suggested, such as a need for enactment for digital personal record management act, platform's explicit policy for individual's post-mortem records, digital records management plan for archival institutions, individual's a preemptive management plan for his/her own records, and a method for writing a will related to digital account information.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.10 no.2
• /
• pp.309-341
• /
• 2009

According to a case of Supreme Court's Sentence No. 2009DA17417 (May 21, 2009), the Supreme Court judges that 'the right to life is the ultimate one of basic human rights stipulated in the Constitution, so it is required to very limitedly and conservatively determine whether to discontinue any medical practice on which patient's life depends directly.' In addition, the Supreme Court admits that 'only if a patient who comes to a fatal phase before death due to attack of any irreversible disease may execute his or her right of self-determination based on human respect and values and human right to pursue happiness, it is permissible to discontinue life-sustaining treatment for him or her, unless there is any special circumstance.' Furthermore, the Supreme Court finds that 'if a patient who is attacked by any irreversible disease informs medical personnel of his or her intention to agree on the refusal or discontinuance of life-sustaining treatment in advance of his or her potential irreversible loss of consciousness, it is justifiable that he or she already executes the right of self-determination according to prior medical instructions, unless there is any special circumstance where it is reasonably concluded that his or her physician is changed after prior medical instructions for him or her.' The Supreme Court also finds that 'if a patient remains at irreversible loss of consciousness without any prior medical instruction, he or she cannot express his or her intentions at all, so it is rational and complying with social norms to admit possibility of estimating his or her own intentions on withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment, provided that such a withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment meets his or her interests in view of his or her usual sense of values or beliefs and it is reasonably concluded that he or she could likely choose to discontinue life-sustaining treatment, even if he or she were given any chance to execute his or her right of self-determination.' This judgment is very significant in a sense that it suggests the reasonable orientation of solutions for issues posed concerning withdrawal of meaningless life-sustaining medical efforts. The issues concerning removal of medical instruments for meaningless life-sustaining treatment and discontinuance of such treatment in regard to medical treatment for terminal cases don't seem to be so much big deal when a patient has clear consciousness enough to express his or her intentions, but it counts that there is any issue regarding a patient who comes to irreversible loss of consciousness and cannot express his or her intentions. Therefore, it is required to develop an institutional instrument that allows relevant authority to estimate the scope of physician's medical duties for terminal patients as well as a patient's intentions to withdraw any meaningless treatment during his or her terminal phase involving loss of consciousness. However, Korean judicial authority has yet to clarify detailed cases where it is permissible to discontinue any life-sustaining treatment for a patient in accordance with his or her right of self-determination. In this context, it is inevitable and challenging to make better legislation to improve relevant systems concerning withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment. The State must assure the human basic rights for its citizens and needs to prepare a system to assure such basic rights through legislative efforts. In this sense, simply entrusting physician, patient or his or her family with any critical issue like the withdrawal of meaningless life-sustaining treatment, even without any reasonable standard established for such entrustment, means the neglect of official duties by the State. Nevertheless, this issue is not a matter that can be resolved simply by legislative efforts. In order for our society to accept judicial system for withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment, it is important to form a social consensus about this issue and also make proactive discussions on it from a variety of standpoints.