• Journal of East-West Nursing Research
• /
• v.20 no.2
• /
• 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.

• 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.

• Journal of Hospice and Palliative Care
• /
• v.16 no.1
• /
• pp.1-9
• /
• 2013

Purpose: The aim of this study was to investigate nursing students' awareness of biomedical ethics and attitudes toward death of terminal patients. Methods: A structured questionnaire was developed to examine nursing students' biomedical ethics. Their attitudes toward terminal patients' death were measured by using the Collett-Lester Fear of Death Scale. Surveys were conducted with 660 nursing students enrolled at a three-year college located in Daejeon, Korea. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, Wilcoxon rank sum test and Kruskall Waills test. Results: Students who have experienced biomedical ethics conflicts, agreed to prohibition of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and have no religion exhibited more negative attitudes toward death compared to students without the above characteristics. Of the participants, 81.2% answered that life sustaining treatment for terminal patients should be discontinued and 76.4% replied that CPR on terminal patients should be prohibited. The majority of the correspondents stated that the two measures above are necessary "for patients' peaceful and dignified death". Conclusion: Study results indicate the need to establish a firm biomedical ethics value to help nursing students form a positive attitude toward death. It also seems necessary to offer students related training before going into clinical practice, if possible. The training program should be developed by considering students' religion, school year, experience with biomedical ethics conflicts and opinion about CPR on terminal patients. The program should also include an opportunity for students to experience terminal patient care in advance via simulation practice on standardized patients.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.13 no.1
• /
• 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.

• Development and Reproduction
• /
• v.14 no.2
• /
• pp.143-154
• /
• 2010

This article analyzes two leading Korean cases which led to opposite conclusions: the Boramae Hospital Case (Korean Supreme Court 2002 Do 995) and the Shinchon Severance Hospital Case (Korean Supreme Court 2009 Da 17471). In doing so, it pays particular attention to the acceptance, modification, and rejection of paternalism, specifically 'physician paternalism' and 'familial paternalism', both of which have long and strongly influenced the Korean medical environment. In Boramae Hospital, the Court emphasized the obligation of the physician in terms of the life of the patient (eg: protecting and preserving the life and welfare of the patient). Its position seemed to be based on the traditional physician paternalism which presupposes the ability of physicians to identify right and wrong choices according to natural laws. However, the Court saw itself as the final arbiter of who identifies and determines the real world content and consequences of that natural law. In short, the Court elevated itself to the supreme guardian of the patient, and held that its decision cannot be overruled by that of the patient's family. So without specifically referring to the importance of the family and the role of familial decisions, both long-observed traditions in medical decision-making in Korea, the Court shifted away from familial paternalism. In Shinchon Severance Hospital, the Court explained the meaning of the patient's powers of self-rulemore concretely, explaining its scope and substance in greater detail. The Court held that one can exercise the right of self-rule, even over issues such as death, in the form of 'previous medical directions'. However, this case does not represent a wholesale acceptance of medical autonomy (ie: it does not accept self-rule unconditionally). Rather, the Court accepted the importance of the opinions and decision of physicians and of the Hospital Ethics Commission, and the Court still retained to itself the authority to review and make alterations to 'material' decision. The Court did not overlook the importance of the decision of the patient's family, but it also did not relinquish its status as supreme guardian, emphasizing the 'objective' nature of a decision from the court.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.17 no.1
• /
• pp.299-346
• /
• 2016

There were also various decisions made in medical area in 2015. In the case that an inmate in a sanatorium was injured due to the reason which can be attributable to the sanatorium and the social welfare foundation that operates the sanatorium request treatment of the patient, the court set the standard of fixation of a party in medical contract. In the case that the family of the patient who was declared brain dead required withdrawal of meaningless life sustaining treatment but the hospital rejected and continued the treatment, the court made a decision regarding chargeable fee for such treatment. When it comes to the eye brightening operation which received measure of suspension from the Ministry of Health and Welfare for the first time in February, 2011, because of uncertainty of its safety, the court did not accept the illegality of such operation itself, however, ordered compensation of the whole damage based on the violation of liability for explanation, which is the omission of explanation about the fact that the cost-effectiveness is not sure as it is still in clinical test stage. There were numerous cases that courts actively acknowledged malpractices; in the cases of paresis syndrome after back surgery, quite a few malpractices during the surgery were acknowledged by the court and in the case of nosocomial infection, hospital's negligence to cause such nosocomial infection was acknowledged by the court. There was a decision which acknowledged malpractice by distinguishing the duty of installation of emergency equipment according to the Emergency Medical Service Act and duty of emergency measure in emergency situations, and a decision which acknowledged negligence of a hospital if the hospital did not take appropriate measures, although it was a very rare disease. In connection with the scope of compensation for damage, there were decisions which comply with substantive truth such as; a court applied different labor ability loss rate as the labor ability loss rate decreased after result of reappraisal of physical ability in appeal compared to the one in the first trial, and a court acknowledged lower labor ability loss rate than the result of appraisal of physical ability considering the condition of a patient, etc. In the event of any damage caused by malpractice, in regard to whether there is a limitation on liability in fee charge after such medical malpractice, the court rejected the hospital's claim for setoff saying that if the hospital only continued treatments to cure the patient or prevent aggravation of disease, the hospital cannot charge Medical bills to the patient. In regard to the provision of the Medical Law that prohibit medical advertisement which was not reviewed preliminarily and punish the violation of such, a decision of unconstitutionality was made as it is a precensorship by an administrative agency as the deliberative bodies such as Korean Medical Association, etc. cannot be denied to be considered as administrative bodies. When it comes to the issue whether PRP treatment, which is commonly performed clinically, should be considered as legally determined uninsured treatment, the court made it clear that legally determined uninsured treatment should not be decided by theoretical possibility or actual implementation but should be acknowledged its medical safety and effectiveness and included in medical care or legally determined uninsured treatment. Moreover, court acknowledged the illegality of investigation method or process in the administrative litigation regarding evaluation of suitability of sanatorium, however, denied the compensation liability or restitution of unjust enrichment of the Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service and the National Health Insurance Corporation as the evaluation agents did not cause such violation intentionally or negligently. We hope there will be more decisions which are closer to substantive truth through clear legal principles in respect of variously arisen issues in the future.

• 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.