• 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.21 no.1
• /
• pp.1-8
• /
• 2018

Nearly 20 years after the Boramea Hospital case, the act on decisions on life-sustaining treatment for patients in hospice and palliative care or at the end of life has taken effect on February 4, 2018 as recommended by the National Bioethics Committee. However, during the legislation process, some parts of the bill that stakeholders and concerned parties did not see eye to eye were either revised or removed. Moreover, the hospice and palliative care part was added in the last minute before the enactment. As a result, the law includes parts that are not in line with the recommendations from the National Bioethics Committee, thereby causing various problems. Therefore, it is crucial to monitor how the decisions on life-sustaining treatments are made in the field and gather various opinions of concerned parties to identify and address problems in the early stage of the implementation of the law. Based on the data, the legislation must be amended to fulfill its purpose that is "to protect the dignity and value of human beings by assuring the best interests of the patients and by respecting their self-determination".

• 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.26 no.2
• /
• pp.95-100
• /
• 2023

With the implementation of Act on Hospice and Palliative Care and Decisions on Life-Sustaining Treatment for Patients at the End of Life, interests of the general public on self-determination right and dignified death of patients have increased markedly in Korea. However, "self-determination" on medical care is misunderstood as decision not to sustain life, and "dignified death" as terminating life before suffering from disease in terminal stage. This belief leads that physician-assisted suicide should be accommodated is being proliferated widely in the society even without accepting euthanasia. Artificially terminating the life of a human is an unethical act even though there is any rational or motivation by the person requesting euthanasia, and there is agreement thereof has been reached while there are overseas countries that allow euthanasia. Given the fact that the essence of medical care is to enable the human to live their lives in greater comfort by enhancing their health throughout their lives, physician-assisted suicide should be deemed as one of the means of euthanasia, not as a means of dignified death. Accordingly, institutional organization and improvement of the quality of hospice palliative care to assist the patients suffering from terminal stage or intractable diseases in putting their lives in order and to more comfortably accept the end of life physically, mentally, socially, psychologically and spiritually need to be implemented first to ensure their dignified death.

• Journal of Hospice and Palliative Care
• /
• v.26 no.2
• /
• pp.69-79
• /
• 2023

Purpose: This study aimed to investigate the involvement of patients who died from hematologic neoplasms in the decision-making process surrounding the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment (LST). Methods: A total of 255 patients diagnosed with hematologic neoplasms who ultimately died following decisions related to LST during their end-of-life period at a university hospital were included in the study. Data were retrospectively obtained from electronic medical records and analyzed utilizing the chi-square test, independent t-test, and logistic regression. Results: In total, 42.0% of patients participated in the decision-making process regarding LST for their hematologic neoplasms, while 58.0% of decisions were made with family involvement. Among these patients, 65.1% died in general wards and 34.9% in intensive care units (ICUs) as a result of decisions such as the suspension of LST. The period from the LST decision to death was longer when the decision was made by the patient (average, 27.15 days) than when it was made by the family (average, 7.48 days). Most decisions were made by doctors and family members in the ICU, where only 20.6% of patients exercised their right to make decisions regarding LST, a rate considerably lower than 79.4% observed in general wards. Decisions to withhold or withdraw LST were more commonly made by patients themselves than by their families. Conclusion: The key to discussing the decision to suspend hospice care and LST is respecting the patient's self-determination. If a patient is lucid prior to admission to the ICU, considerations about suspending LST should involve the patient input.

• Korean Medical Education Review
• /
• v.24 no.2
• /
• pp.113-127
• /
• 2022

Considering the recent medicalization of death, the importance of preparing both laypersons and medical students to have meaningful end-of-life conversations, which is among the objectives of death education, will grow. The Act of Hospice and Palliative Care and Decisions on Life-Sustaining Treatment for Patients at the End of Life provided a new source of momentum to death education for both laypersons and medical professionals, as the importance of education on death is widely recognized. However, problems remain regarding how to prepare people for productive conversations at the end-of-life and how to secure the continuity of care. Different focuses and deficiencies are observed in death education programs for each category of learner. In education for laypeople, tangible information on how to actualize one's existential and personal understanding of death through real-life options is lacking, except for presenting the "protocol" of the Act. Conversely, basic medical education lacks an understanding of or confrontation with death on the existential and personal levels. Death education should aim to build a shared understanding that can facilitate communication between the two groups. The scant overlap between layperson education and basic medical education even after the Act's enactment is worrisome. Further fundamental changes in death education are required regarding its content. Topics that patients and doctors can share and discuss regarding death and end-of-life care should be discovered and provided as educational content both to laypeople and future medical professionals.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.23 no.4
• /
• pp.75-102
• /
• 2022

In this article, 「Act on the hospice and palliative care and decisions on life-sustaining treatment for patients at the end of life」, 「Act On The Improvement Of Mental Health And The Support For Welfare Services For Mental Patients」, 「Organs Transplant Act」, 「Safety And Management Of Human Tissue Act」, 「Pharmaceutical Affairs Act」, 「Prevention Of Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome Act」, 「Tuberculosis Prevention Act」, 「Infectious Disease Control And Prevention Act」 were reviewed. Patients' right to self-determination and consent in these laws are related to civil law. even though they are closely related to the civil law in relation to patients' right to self-determination and consent. In order to consistently operate medical administration, it is necessary to understand the principles of civil law decision-making.

• Journal of Hospice and Palliative Care
• /
• v.20 no.3
• /
• pp.167-172
• /
• 2017

End-stage liver disease (ESLD) is a terminal condition of cirrhosis which cannot be treated without liver transplantation. Thus, it is natural for patients to consider hospice/palliative care (HPC). Since the recent legislation of the Act on Decisions on Life-Sustaining Treatment for Patients in Hospice and Palliative Care or at the End of Life (Act No. 14013) in Korea, the practicality of this law has become an issue. The criteria for HPC should be defined with consideration to how the severity of each ESLD complication may vary by individual patients. Generally, patients qualify if they have an intractable condition despite aggressive treatment such as the hepatorenal syndrome, hepatic encephalopathy or variceal hemorrhage. However, the option of liver transplantation should be sufficiently discussed with patients and their families before making a decision on HPC. The evaluation of which ESLD patients should receive HPC should be based on a long-term doctor-patient relationship and sufficient objective data. Therefore, a multidisciplinary approach and mutual consultation among cirrhosis specialists and doctors with other expertise are essential to offer optimal and balanced treatments between liver-specific treatment and HPC. Discussed in this review are adequate criteria for HPC and special considerations for ESLD at the point of HPC.