• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.24 no.4
• /
• pp.103-128
• /
• 2023

According to the current act of Decision-Marking in Life-Sustaining Medicine, the decision to withhold or discontinue life-sustaining treatment is primarily based on the wishes of a patient in the dying process. Decision-making regarding life-sustaining treatment for these patients is made by the patient, if he or she is conscious, directly expressing his/her intention for life-sustaining treatment in writing or verbally or by writing an advance medical directive and physician orders for life-sustaining treatment. It can be exercised. On the other hand, if the patient has not written an advance medical directive or physician orders for life-sustaining treatment, the patient's intention can be confirmed with a statement from the patient's family, or a decision to discontinue life-sustaining treatment can be made with the consent of all members of the patient's family. However, in the case of an unrelated patient who has no family or whose family is unknown, if an advance medical directive or physician orders for life-sustaining treatment are not written before hospitalization and a medical condition prevents the patient from expressing his or her opinion, the patient's will cannot be known and the patient cannot be informed. A situation arises where a decision must be made as to whether to continue or discontinue life-sustaining treatment. This study reviewed discussions and measures for unbefriended patients under the current law in order to suggest policy measures for deciding on life-sustaining treatment in the case of unbefriended patients. First, we looked at the application of the adult guardian system, but although an adult guardian can replace consent for medical treatment that infringes on the body, permission from the family court is required in cases where death may occur as a direct result of medical treatment. It cannot be said to be an appropriate solution for patients in the process of dying. Second, in accordance with Article 14 of the Life-Sustaining Treatment Decision Act, we looked at the deliberation of medical institution ethics committees on decisions to discontinue life-sustaining treatment for patients without family ties.Under the current law, the medical institution ethics committee cannot make decisions on discontinuation of life-sustaining treatment for unbefriended patients, so through revision, matters regarding decisions on discontinuation of life-sustaining treatment for unbefriended patients are reflected in Article 14 of the same Act or separate provisions for unbefriended patients are made. It is necessary to establish and amend new provisions. In addition, the medical institution ethics committee must make a decision on unbefriended patients, but if the medical institution cannot make such a decision, there is a need to revise the law so that the public ethics committee can make decisions, such as discontinuing life-sustaining treatment for unbefriended patients.

• Journal of Hospice and Palliative Care
• /
• v.25 no.1
• /
• pp.1-11
• /
• 2022

The Act on Decisions on Life-Sustaining Treatment has been in effect since 2018 for end-of-life patients. However, only 20~25% of deaths of terminally ill patients comply with the law, while the remaining 75~80% do not. There is significant confusion in how the law distinguishes between those in the terminal stage and those in the dying process. These 2 stages can be hard to distinguish, and they should be understood as a single unified "terminal stage." The number of medical institutions eligible for life-sustaining treatment decisions should be legally expanded to properly reflect patients' wishes. To prevent unnecessary suffering resulting from futile life-sustaining treatment, life-sustaining treatment decisions for terminal patients without the needed familial relationships should be permitted and made by hospital ethics committees. Adult patients should be permitted to assign a legal representative appointed in advance to represent them. Medical records can be substituted for a patient's judgment letter (No. 9) and an implementation letter (No. 13) for the decision to suspend life-sustaining treatment. Forms 1, 10, 11, and 12 should be combined into a single form. The purpose of the Life-sustaining Medical Decisions Act is to respect patients' right to self-determination and protect their best interests. Issues related to the act that have emerged in the 3 years since its implementation must be analyzed, and a plan should be devised to improve upon its shortcomings.

• Journal of Hospice and Palliative Care
• /
• v.23 no.2
• /
• pp.93-102
• /
• 2020

Purpose: The Act on Hospice and Palliative Care and Decisions on Life-Sustaining Treatment for Patients at the End of Life came into force in February 2018 in Korea. This study reviews the practices of end-of-life care for patients who withdrew or withheld life-sustaining treatment at a tertiary care hospital, addresses the limitations of the law, and discusses necessary steps to promote patient-centered self-determination. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the medical records of patients who died after agreeing to withhold life-sustaining treatment in 2018 at our university hospital. The cause of death, the intensity of end-of-life care, and other characteristics were reviewed and statistically analyzed. Results: Of a total of 334 patients, 231 (69%) died from cancer. The decision to stop life-sustaining treatment was made by family members for 178 patients overall (53.3%) and for 101 (43.7%) cancer patients, regardless of the patient's wishes. When the patient decided to stop life-sustaining treatment, the time from the authorization to withhold life-sustaining treatment to death was longer than when the decision was made by family members (28.7±41.3 vs 10.5±23.2 days, P<0.001). Conclusion: In many cases, the decision to discontinue life-sustaining treatment was made by the family, not by the patient. In order to protect human dignity based on the patients' self-determination, it is necessary for patients to understand their disease based on careful explanations from physicians. Ongoing survey-based research will be necessary in the future.

• Journal of Hospice and Palliative Care
• /
• v.25 no.1
• /
• pp.25-41
• /
• 2022

Purpose: This study investigated trends of nursing research on life-sustaining treatment in South Korea. Methods: The period for data search was set from January 2018 to December 2020. The major search terms used were advance directives and life-sustaining treatment. Of the 492 records identified in the initial search, 461 articles were excluded for various reasons. A total of 31 records were included in the final qualitative analysis. Results: Sixteen studies had nursing students as study subjects, while nine studies had nurses as study subjects. The majority of the studies employed cross-sectional descriptive surveys as their research design. The major themes that emerged from the studies were as follows: attitudes toward withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment, knowledge of and attitudes toward advance directives, perceptions of a good death, and nurses' attitude toward life support care. Most of the studies reviewed concluded that attitudes toward withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment significantly impacted both knowledge of and attitudes toward advance directives and perceptions of a good death. Conclusion: To date, Korea still lacks extensive nursing research concerning life support care. Further research is needed to provide systematic education for nursing ethics and life support care, as well as the introduction of a specialist course. Furthermore, a multidisciplinary approach is necessary to provide diverse support systems and policy measures. In particular, since nurses are directly responsible for providing life support care, nurses' roles should be expanded in accordance with the Act on Decisions on Life-Sustaining Treatment.

• Health Policy and Management
• /
• v.33 no.1
• /
• pp.19-28
• /
• 2023

Background: With the enactment of the Hospice, Palliative, Care, and Life-sustaining Treatment Decision-Making Act in February 2018, legal guidelines for physician orders for life-sustaining treatment (POLST) were presented. This study was conducted to analyze the association of writing POLST on the use of health care before death. Methods: The study analyzed the electronic medical records and POLSTs of 1,003 adult patients who died at a tertiary hospital located in Seoul from February 4, 2018 to February 4, 2019. Results: Of the deaths, 80% (n=804) completed POLST. Among patients who completed POLST before death, 51% (n=412) were written 1-7 days before death, and only 31% (n=246) were completed by patients themselves. 99% (n=799) decided to withdraw or withhold cardiopulmonary resuscitation. As a result of analyzing the effect of POLST on medical use before death, it was found that POLST and inpatient cost had a significant negative correlation, and POLST completion significantly reduced death in the intensive care unit (ICU). However, both inpatient costs and death at ICU increased when the POLST was completed by surrogate decision-makers rather than patients themselves. Conclusion: The enactment of the Hospice, Palliative, Care, and Life-sustaining Treatment Decision-Making Act provided a legal basis for withdrawing and withholding meaningless life-sustaining treatment. By specifying the treatment to be received at the end of one's life through the POLST, inpatient treatment costs and death at the ICU were decreased. However, the frequent decision-making by the surrogates and completion of POLST close to death may hinder the original purpose of the law.

• Proceedings of the Korean Society of Computer Information Conference
• /
• 2019.07a
• /
• pp.195-198
• /
• 2019

연명의료결정법의 정식 명칭은 '호스피스 완화의료 및 임종 과정에 있는 환자의 연명의료 결정에 관한 법'이다. 이 법은 호스피스 완화의료에 대한 것과 환자의 연명의료 결정에 대한 것을 규정하고 있다. 특히, 후자의 연명의료결정에 관한 부분은 법제정 과정에서 법 종교 의료 윤리 등 다양한 분야에서 논박이 있었지만 2018년 2월 4일부터 시행되고 있다. 법학에서는 이 법이 생명이라는 법익과 관련되어 있어 형사법적, 민사법적으로 중요한 의미를 갖는다. 이 법이 탄생되기 위해 두 번의 변곡점이 있었다. 첫째, 1997년 '보라매병원 사건'에서 의사를 작위에 의한 살인방조죄로 판결한 사건 둘째, 2009년 '김 할머니' 사건에서 회생할 수 없을 경우 가족 등이 진술한 환자 의사에 따라 연명 의료를 중단할 수 있다는 대법원 판결이다. 연명의료결정법은 헌법상 생명권과 자기운명결정권이라는 기본권 충돌이 발생한다. 두 기본권이 서로 상충 할 때에는 어떠한 기본권을 우선해야 하는지가 실질적으로 문제되는데, 이익형량을 통한 규범의 조화로운 해석을 통해 해결해야 한다. 또한 이 법의 흠결과 문제점을 고찰하여 개정작업이 진행되어야 한다.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.17 no.2
• /
• pp.257-279
• /
• 2016

Recently, the Well-dying Act was legislated in Korea, and it will come into effect in August 4, 2017. This Act allows to withdraw the life sustaining treatment from impending death patients and also provide the hospice and palliative treatment to terminal patients. In the Supreme Court's case so called "Madam Kim", medical condition of Madam Kim was a persistent vegetative status owing to brain damage and her family members wanted to remove the artificial ventilation. In 2009, the Supreme Court allowed to withdraw the artificial ventilation under the specific conditions. We applied this new Well-dying Act to the Madam Kim's case hypothetically in order to know this Act can reasonably solve the problem of life sustaining treatment for dying or terminal patients. For the impending patients, the Well-dying Act has the problem not to withdraw the futile treatment due to the advance directives of patients. Vice versa, the terminal patients have no chance to withdraw the life sustaining treatment due to the this Act impose the duty to provide the hospice and palliative treatment despite of advance directives. We need to ruke out the persistent vegetative patients from the terminal patients caused by the cancer, acquired immune deficiency syndrome, chronic obstructive lung disease and chronic liver cirrhosis, In addition, we have to discuss the effect of the advance directives of terminal patients in view of self determination right.

• 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.10 no.1
• /
• pp.263-305
• /
• 2009

Is it lawful to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment applied to a patient in a terminal condition or permanent unconscious condition? In Korea, there are no such laws or regulations which control affairs related to the withholding or withdrawal life-support treatment and active euthanasia as the Natural Death Act or the Death with Dignity Act in the U. S. A. And in addition there has had no precedent of Supreme Court. Recently Supreme Court has pronounced a historical judgment on a terminal care case. The court allowed the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment from a patient in a permanent unconscious state. Fundamentally the court judged that the continuation of that medical treatment would infringe dignity and value of a patient as a human being. And the court required some legal grounds to consider such withdrawal or withholding of medical care lawful. The legal grounds are as follow. First, the patient is in a incurable and irreversible condition and already entered a stage of death. Second, the patient executed a directive, in advance, directing the withholding or withdrawal of life-support treatment in a incurable and irreversible condition or in a terminal condition. Otherwise, at least, the patient's will would be presumed through his/her character, view of value, philosophy, religious faith and career etc. I regard if a patient is in a incurable and irreversible condition or in a terminal condition, the medical contract between a patient and a doctor would be terminated because of the actual impossibility of achievement of it's purpose. So I think the discontinuation of life-sustaining care would be legally allowed without depending on the patient's own will.

• Journal of Hospice and Palliative Care
• /
• v.23 no.2
• /
• pp.85-92
• /
• 2020

Purpose: In 2018, the Act on Decisions on Life-Sustaining Treatment for Patients in Hospice and Palliative Care or at the End of Life was implemented and the scope of official recognition for terminally ill patients was expanded. The purpose of this study was to investigate the decisions made by patients with end-stage liver disease about their life-sustaining treatment in a clinical setting. Methods: The subjects of this study were patients with end-stage liver disease hospitalized at a tertiary hospital in Seoul, Korea who wrote physician orders for life-sustaining treatment (POLST). Data collection was done using patients' electronic medical records, and a retrospective analysis of POLST was conducted. Results: Among 101 patients, 18.8% were female and 81.2% were male, and their mean age was 61.8 (±10.61) years. Sixty-three patients (62.4%) wrote their POLST by themselves. Three patients withdrew the POLST, of whom two did so for liver transplantation, and one did so for chemotherapy. Conclusion: This study shows that sufficient consideration of liver transplantation is needed for end-stage liver disease patients before making decisions on life-sustaining treatment. The self-determination of patients must be respected and effective guidelines are urgently needed.