• 제목/요약/키워드: Hospital Ethics Commission

검색결과 2건 처리시간 0.02초

치료중단행위에 대한 의료형법적 고찰 -의학적 충고에 반한 퇴원 사례를 중심으로- (A Study on Medical-criminal Problem of Withdrawing Life-Sustaining Treatment)

  • 조인호
    • 의료법학
    • /
    • 제9권1호
    • /
    • pp.319-382
    • /
    • 2008
  • As a withdrawing care's study, the purpose of this study is searching about withdrawing care's acceptance and circumstances through Bora-mae hospital case(chapter 1). Withdrawing life-sustaining treatment has various forms. Though the meaning of euthanasia, death with dignity, natural death, physician assisted suicide are duplicated, the meaning of those are different slightly. Firstly, this study looks about the difference of the those meaning and acceptance range(condition) by withdrawing care's forms(chapter 2). Bora-mae hospital case sentenced guilty about physician who discharged incompetent patient who was after surgery by patient's wife determination. This Bora-mae case that sentenced guilty about discharge against medical advise(DAMA) that is regarded to custom has brought intensive confliction of legal, social, medical aspect, Bora-mae hospital case has many legal problems. First, as to criminal law rule 250(murder), the problem is whether discharge and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment is commission or omission. this study concluded omission(district court: omission, appeal, supreme court: commission). Because legal denounce point of discharge and medical treatment withdrawing is omission that physician who is obligatory on patient to cure. If physician's act is regarded omission, it is necessary to determine whether he has guardian status and obligation. Without guardian status and obligation, omission crime can't exist. This study decided that physician had guardian status and obligation and foundation of guardian status was pre-action or acceptance of emergency patient. Physician's medical treatment duty finished when patient(or patient's guardian) demands discharge. But when patient death is foreseen and other possible treatment does not exist, his duty of life prolonging treatment does not finish. This originate from physician's social responsibility and public status that limits patient's private liberty. This study regarded physician's action as accomplice about whether physician's discharging action is accomplice or the principal offender(district court: the principal offender, appeal, supreme court: accomplice). Though the principal offender needs criminal determination and action, there is no this common determination and functional action control of physician in Bora-mae case(chapter 3). Bora-mae hospital case partly originated from deficiency of legal, institutive system including medical security system shortage, the instruction is 1. medical security system strengthening, 2. hospital ethical committee's activity strengthening, 3. institutionalization of withdrawing life-sustaining treatment, 4. acceptance of pre-decision making system, 5. sufficient persuasion of physician for patient and faithful writing of medical paper, 6. respect for patients' self-determination and rights, 7. consciousness's changing for withdrawing life-sustaining treatment and persistent education about medical ethics(chapter 4). Considering Bora-mae case, medical sector is not the dead ground of a criminal punishment. Intervention of criminal law in medical sector give rise to ill effect, that is, excess medical examination and treatment, safeguard treatment, delay of discharge from a hospital. Because sufficient guarantee of life becomes mere empty slogan under situation that impose a burden of heavy cost to family or hospital, public and systematic solution should be given(chapter 5).

  • PDF

한국 의료법에서 후견주의 이념의 수용, 변형 그리고 거부 - 치료중단에 대한 법원 판결을 중심으로 - (Acceptance, Modification and Rejection of Paternalism in Korean Medical Law)

  • 김나경
    • 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.