• 의료법학
• /
• 제24권4호
• /
• pp.103-128
• /
• 2023

현행 연명의료결정법에 따르면 연명의료를 시행하지 않거나 중단하는 결정은 임종과정에 있는 환자의 의사가 우선적으로 적용된다. 이러한 환자를 대상으로 하는 연명의료의 의사결정은 환자가 의식이 있는 경우에는 환자 본인이 연명의료에 대한 의사를 직접 서면이나 구두로 표시하거나 사전연명의료의향서와 연명의료계획서를 작성하는 것으로 자기결정을 행사할 수 있다. 반면에, 환자가 사전연명의료의향서나 연명의료계획서를 작성하지 않은 경우에는 환자 가족의 진술로 환자의 의사를 확인하거나 환자가족 전원의 동의로 연명의료중단등결정을 할 수 있다. 그러나 가족이 없거나 가족을 알 수 없는 무연고 환자인 경우에는 입원하기 전에 사전연명의료의향서와 연명의료계획서를 작성하지 않은 상태에서 의사표현을 할 수 없는 의학적 상태로 되면 환자의 의사를 알 수가 없어 환자에 대한 연명의료를 지속해야 할지 중단해야 할지에 대한 결정을 해야 하는 상황이 발생한다. 본 연구는 무연고환자의 경우에 연명의료결정을 위한 정책적 방안을 제시하고자 현행법상 무연고 환자에 대한 논의와 방안 검토했다. 첫째로, 성년후견인제도의 적용을 살펴보았지만, 성년후견인은 신체를 침해하는 의료행위에 대한 동의를 대신할 수 있지만 의료행위의 직접적인 결과로 사망할 수 있는 경우에는 가정법원의 허가를 필요로 하기 때문에 임종과정에 있는 급박한 환자에게는 적절한 방안이라고 할 수 없다. 둘째로, 연명의료결정법 제14조에 따라 의료기관윤리위원회에서 무연고 환자에 대한 연명의료중단등결정에 관한 심의에 대해 살펴보았다. 현행법상에서는 의료기관윤리위원회에서 무연고 환자에 대한 연명의료중단등결정을 할 수 없기 때문에, 개정을 통하여 무연고 환자에 대한 연명의료중단등결정에 대한 사항을 동법 제14조에 반영하거나 무연고 환자에 대한 규정을 따로 신설하여 개정하는 것이 필요하다. 또한 의료기관윤리위원회에서 무연고 환자에 대한 결정해야 하지만, 그런 결정을 하는 것에 대해서 해당 의료기관에서 할 수 없다면, 공용윤리위원회에서 무연고환자의 연명의료중단등결정을 할 수 있도록 법률을 개정할 필요가 있다.

• Journal of Hospice and Palliative Care
• /
• 제25권1호
• /
• 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
• /
• 제23권2호
• /
• 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
• /
• 제25권1호
• /
• 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.

• 보건행정학회지
• /
• 제33권1호
• /
• 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.

• 한국컴퓨터정보학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 한국컴퓨터정보학회 2019년도 제60차 하계학술대회논문집 27권2호
• /
• 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.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제17권2호
• /
• pp.257-279
• /
• 2016

최근에 환자연명의료결정법이 제정되었고, 2017년 8월 4일부터 효력을 발휘하게 된다. 이 법은 임종 과정 환자를 연명 의료 중단의 대상으로 하고, 말기 환자는 호스피스 완화의료를 받도록 하고 있는 것이 특징이다. 김할머니 사건은 뇌손상으로 지속적 식물상태에 빠진 환자에 대하여 가족이 인공호흡기 제거를 요청한 사건으로, 2009년 대법원이 일정한 요건을 인정하여 인공호흡기 제거를 허용한 사건이다. 김할머니 사건에 대하여 환자연명의료결정법을 적용하였을 때, 과연 대법원과 같은 내용의 결정이 내려 질 수 있는지 가정적 적용을 시도하였다. 환자연명의료결정법은 임종과정 환자 연명의료결정에 환자의 의사내용을 요건으로 하기 때문에, 도리어 인공호흡기 제거가 불가능할 수도 있고, 과잉적 의료개입이 지속될 가능성이 있다. 반대로 말기 환자의 경우는 연명의료중단에 대하여 환자의 자기결정권을 인정하지 않기 때문에 김할머니 사건에서 인공호흡기 제거가 불가능하다고 해석할 가능성도 있다. 현재 법에는 암, 후천성면역결핍증, 만성폐쇄성호흡기 질환, 만성간경화 및 보건복지부령으로 정하는 질환을 말기 환자로 규정하고 있는데, 보건복지부 지침 등을 통하여 김할머니와 같은 지속적 식물상태를 명확하게 제외하다는 해석이 필요하고, 전체적으로는 말기 환자의 사전 연명 의료 의사에 대한 자기 결정권 인정 여부에 대하여 재논의도 필요하다.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제9권1호
• /
• 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.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제10권1호
• /
• 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
• /
• 제23권2호
• /
• 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.