• 동서간호학연구지
• /
• 제20권2호
• /
• pp.103-111
• /
• 2014

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to identify the characteristics of life-sustaining treatment and attitudes towards advance directives among geriatric patients. Methods: The elderly participants (N=146) were recruited from a university hospital from October 30, 2012 to March 31, 2013. A questionnaire for collecting data of participants' characteristics, their experiences related to life-sustaining treatment, and attitudes towards advance directives was used. The data were analyzed using SPSS WIN 17. Results: Most participants (84.9%) were in favor of advance directives. Although most of participants wanted to receive CPR for sudden cardiac arrest (78.8%) and pain control medication (74.0%), most preferred to refuse life-sustaining treatments such as tracheostomy (96.6%) or ventilator (87.0%). Participants who had a family or acquaintances with CPR experiences (U=852.00 p=.038), had discussed with their family and acquaintances regarding end-of-life sustaining treatment (t=2.91, p=.004), or made decisions about refusing the life sustaining treatments (t=3.19, p=.002) preferred to have advance directives than those who did not. Conclusion: The findings of this study suggested the potential benefits of educational programs about advance directives for the end-of-life for geriatric patients to make decisions for life-sustaining treatments in advance.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제11권2호
• /
• 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.

• Journal of Hospice and Palliative Care
• /
• 제16권1호
• /
• pp.1-9
• /
• 2013

목적: 본 연구는 간호대학생의 말기환자에 대한 생명의료윤리 인식과 죽음에 대한 태도를 파악하기 위한 서술적 조사연구이다. 방법: 대상자는 D광역시에 소재한 일개 전문대학의 3년제 간호과에 재학 중인 660명이었다. 자료는 2011년 10월부터 11월까지 수집하였다. 생명의료윤리 인식은 본 연구자가 선행연구를 근거로 개발한 도구로, 죽음에 대한 태도는 Collett와 Lester(1969)의 FODS (Fear of Death Scale)로 측정하였다. 수집된 자료는 서술통계, Wilcoxon rank sum test와 Kruskall Waills test로 분석하였다. 결과: 생명의료윤리에 대한 문제로 갈등 경험이 있고, 심폐소생술 금지가 필요하다고 생각하며, 종교가 없는 학생이 그렇지 않은 학생에 비해 죽음에 대해 부정적인 태도를 가지고 있었다. 대상자 중 말기환자의 연명치료중단이 필요하다고 생각하는 경우는 81.2%였고, 말기환자의 심폐소생술 금지가 필요하다고 생각하는 경우는 76.4%로서, 심폐소생술 금지가 필요한 이유는 '평안하고 품위있는 죽음을 위해서'가 가장 많았다. 결론: 죽음에 대한 긍정적인 태도의 형성을 위해 확고한 생명의료윤리 가치관의 확립이 요구되며, 가능하면 임상실습을 시작하기 전에 교육이 실시될 필요가 있다. 교육 프로그램을 구성할 때 종교, 학년, 생명의료윤리 갈등 경험, 심폐소생술 금지 찬성 여부가 포함되어야 하며, 말기환자 간호를 미리 경험할 수 있도록 표준화 환자를 이용한 시뮬레이션 실습의 기회를 제공하는 것이 필요하다.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제13권1호
• /
• pp.125-153
• /
• 2012

The adult guardianship system has been introduced through amendments of Korean Civil Code for the first time in the March 2011(Act No. 10429, 7. 1. 2013. enforcement). The adult guardianship system has the main purposes to provide a lot of help vulnerable adults and elderly, and protect them on the welfare related with property act, treatment, care, etc. There could be a controversy about whether the protection Legal Guardian's consent(formerly known as the Mental Health Act) or permission of the Family Court(revised Civil Code) are required to, or the Mental Health Act should be revised, when mental patient will be hospitalized forcibly. The author proposes that mental patient with Adult guardians should be determined by Legal Guardian's consent and approval of the Family Court, but mental patient without Adult guardians could be determined by Legal Guardian's consent. The issue of Withdrawing of life-sustaining treatment could be occurred due to the aging society and the development of modern medicine, and this has provided difficult, various problems to mankind in Legal, ethical, and social welfare aspects. The need of Death with dignity law or Natural death law has been reduced for a revision of the Civil Code. Therefore, on the issue of Withdrawing of life-sustaining treatment, in the future, intervention of the court is necessary in accordance with the revised Civil Code Section, and Organ Transplantation Act and the brain death criteria may serve as an important criterion.

• 한국발생생물학회지:발생과생식
• /
• 제14권2호
• /
• pp.143-154
• /
• 2010

이 글은 연명치료의 중단에 관해 서로 상반된 결론을 내렸던 보라매병원 판결(대법원 2002도995)과 신촌세브란스병원 판결(대법원 2009다17471)이 전통적으로 의료사회를 지배했던 의사후견주의 혹은 가족주의적 후견주의의 이념을 어떠한 방식으로 수용하거나 변형 또는 거부하고 있는지를 분석한다. 보라매병원 사건에서 법원이 '의사'의 자연법적 의무를 강조한 것은 의사가 자연법 발견의 능력이 있음을 전제하는 전통적인 의사후견주의적 인식에서 출발한 것이긴 하다. 하지만 법원은 종국적으로는 자연법 발견의 최종적 주체를 '법원'으로 상정함으로써 스스로를 환자에 대한 독자적 후견인으로 규정한 셈이 되었다. 뿐만 아니라 법원은 환자 가족의 결정 역시 법원의 자연법적 결정 뒤로 물러나게 함으로써 가족주의적 후견주의로부터 탈피했지만, 법원의 우월성을 드러낼 뿐 가족의 결정이 가질 수 있는 의미를 충분히 존중하지는 못했다. 신촌세브란스병원 사건에서는 이와는 달리 환자의 자기결정권이 갖는 의미가 무엇인지를 좀더 명확히 언급한다. 뿐만 아니라 자기결정권의 행사범위는 '내용적'으로, 그리고 '시간적'으로도 확대된다. 하지만 이 판결 역시 진정한 의미에서의 의료적 자율성에 대한 인식을 충분히 보여주진 못했다. 법원은 의사나 병원윤리위원회의 결정의 중요성을 인식하면서도 행위에 대한 실체적인 판단의 권한을 여전히 유지하고 있는 듯하며, 환자가족의 결정을 중시하긴 하지만 여전히 정황에 대한 (법원의) '객관적' 판단을 강조함으로써 결정주체로서의 권위를 포기하지 않는다.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제17권1호
• /
• pp.299-346
• /
• 2016

2015년 한해에도 의료분야에서 다양한 판결이 선고되었다. 요양원 입소자에 대하여 요양원측 과실로 상해가 발생하여 요양원을 운영하는 사회복지법인이 환자의 진료를 의뢰한 사건에서 진료계약의 당사자 확정 기준이 제시되었고, 뇌사상태에 빠진 환자 가족의 무의미한 연명치료 중단 요구에 대하여 병원이 이를 거부하고 계속 진료한 경우 청구 가능한 진료비에 관한 판단이 이루어졌다. 안전성이 확인되지 아니하여 2011. 2. 보건복지부로부터 사상 초유의 시술중단조치를 받았던 눈미백수술에 관하여 법원은 시술 자체의 위법성을 인정하지는 아니하였으나 임상시험 단계에 있어 비용 대비 효과가 확립되어 있지 않다는 사실을 설명하지 아니한 설명의무 위반으로 전 손해의 배상을 명하였다. 의료과실을 적극적으로 인정한 판결로는 척추수술 후 마미증후군이 발생한 사건들에서 수술과정상 과실이 인정된 사례가 상당수 있었고, 병원감염 사건에서 감염을 유발한 과실을 인정한 판결이 선고되었다. 응급의료에 관한 법률상 응급장비 설치의무와 응급상황 발생시 조치의무를 구분하여 의료과실을 인정한 판결이 선고되었고, 극히 드문 희귀질환이라 하더라도 그에 대한 적절한 조치를 취하지 않은 의료기관에게 과실을 인정한 판결이 선고되었다. 손해배상의 범위와 관련하여 항소심 신체재감정 결과 노동능력상실률이 1심보다 작아지자 시간의 경과에 따라 노동능력상실률을 달리 적용하거나 환자의 상태에 따라 노동능력상실률을 신체감정 결과보다 낮게 인정하는 등 실체진실에 부합하는 판결이 선고되었다. 의료과실로 손해가 발생한 경우 의료사고 후 발생한 진료비에 책임제한이 적용되는지 여부와 관련하여 법원은 병원에서 환자 상태의 치유 또는 악화를 방지하는 정도의 치료만 계속되었다면 환자에게 진료비 지급을 청구할 수 없다는 이유로 병원 측의 상계주장을 배척하였다. 사전심의를 받지 않은 의료광고를 금지하고 그 위반시 처벌하는 의료법 규정에 대하여 사전심의기관인 대한의사협회 등의 행정기관성을 부인할 수 없어 사전검열에 해당한다는 이유로 위헌결정이 내려졌다. 임상에서 흔하게 시행되고 있는 PRP 치료가 법정비급여에 해당하는지 여부에 관하여 법원은 법정비급여 여부는 이론적인 가능성이나 실제 실시 여부 등에 따라 결정되는 것이 아니라 의학적 안전성 유효성을 인정받은 후 요양급여 또는 비급여대상으로의 편입절차를 거쳐야 함을 분명히 하였다. 또한 법원은 요양병원 적정성 평가에 관한 행정소송에서, 구조부문의 조사방식이나 절차상 위법을 인정하면서도 그 위법사유의 정도가 당연무효에까지는 이르지 아니하고 평가기관의 고의 과실이 없다는 이유로 건강보험심사평가원과 국민건강보험공단에 부당이득반환이나 손해배상의무가 없다는 판단을 하였다. 향후 더욱 다양하게 제기되는 쟁점들에 관하여 명쾌한 법리를 통해 실체진실에 다가가는 판결을 기대해본다.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제10권2호
• /
• 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.