• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.9 no.2
• /
• pp.77-107
• /
• 2008

In Republic of Chaina (Taiwan), Natural Death Act named "Anning Huauhe Yiliao Tiaoli" which means palliative and hospice care act was enacted in year of 2000. And enforced in the same year. Many scholars say that Taiwan's Act took Many U.S.A.'s acts such as 'Federal Patient Self-Determination Act 1990', 'California Natural Death Act 1976' and 'Washington Natural Death Act 1979' for a model. Taiwan's Act adopts a few outstanding systems - 'advance declarations' including 'living will' and 'durable power of attorney for health care', 'family-determination system' for a patient who is in a persistent unconscious state. This paper disusses this Act. 'The content is as follow: 1. A background of legislation. 2. The purpose of legislation. 3. The concept of terms. 4. Patient's self-determination. 5. Subrogated determination by family. 6. Keeping documents. 7. Punitive provision. 8. The relationship with euthanasia. 9. Controversial issues.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.9 no.2
• /
• pp.53-75
• /
• 2008

The end of life problem in the United States has been evolved from the development of concept of brain death over last 50 yr. The invention of ventilator and the development of emergency medicine also played a key role to elongate the end stage of life and which caused the American people to ask a question about the patients self determination and refusing the unwarranted medical treatment in the view of the death with dignity. With regard to the patient unable to self determination, surrogate decision was also considered. To guarantee the self determination, The patient self determination act also enacted on the level of Federal regulation in 1990s. But no law has effectively dealt with the situation when medical treatment became futile. Along with the significant debates on literature and court cases. The American Medical Association's Council on Medical and Judical Affairs presented formal opinion and the Texas was the first states to regulate the medical futile situation in 1999. Even though that definition was in controversy, the concept of medical futility mainly focused on the doctors' right to refuse the treatment.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.9 no.2
• /
• pp.11-52
• /
• 2008

Based on foreign examples and past debates, the minimal conditions for passive euthanasia can be suggested as following; (1) The patient is incurable by modem medical practice and his death is impending (less than 6 months), (2) Euthanasia is practiced solely to relieve physical pain of the patient, (3) If the patient can express his will, there should be a clear and sincere request or consent, (4) More than 2 doctors including doctor in charge should consent, (5) Euthanasia should be practiced in ethical way, (6) Patient family should agree(when the patient will is assumed.) It is hard to resolve issues regarding euthanasia based on past rulings and cases without concrete law. As in United States and Germany, clear and objective provisions of euthanasia and definitive method for patient's advanced directive should be legislated to resolve medical conflict and to relieve patient and family from agony. And death with dignity debate will not be able to proceed if it is only substantively approached because of unclear definition of euthanasia and benefit comparison way of thinking. Thus it is important to establish definitive process to decided legislation of euthanasia act and resolving conflicts arising from each step of the process among interested parties exchanging medical/ethical opinions.

• 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.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.25 no.1
• /
• pp.193-222
• /
• 2024

From a global trend, discussions on the patient's death with dignity are gradually progressing from the issue of withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment to the issue of whether to allow assisted death and its requirements. Several states in the United States and Western European countries such as Canada, Belgium, and the Netherlands have institutionalized treatment to accelerate the time of death through the assistance of doctors. In France, after a long period of raising and reviewing issues, discussions on related legislation are taking place at a slower pace than in other European countries. In France, social discussions and legislative attempts on death with dignity have been actively conducted since the late 20th century. The Leonetti Act of 2005 prohibited the continuation of meaningless treatment against the will of patients, and after the Clay-Leonetti Act of 2016, it was legalized to administer intensive and continuous sedatives to patients until death. However, unlike many neighboring European countries, treatment that speeds up the time of death itself is still prohibited in France, even if the patient wants. As the existential and universal question of whether to allow dying patients to die painlessly with the help of a doctor has recently emerged as an important issue, a number of lawmakers have submitted legislation to legalize assisted death. This paper examines the legislative process developed in relation to patients' rights to dignified death in France, and compares and reviews French legislation that attempts to legalize assisted death with the amendment to the Korean Life-Sustaining Treatment Act.

• 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.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.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.23 no.2
• /
• pp.67-96
• /
• 2022

"Aid in Dying" means that when a decision-making patient suffers from an incurable disease, a drug that can speed up death is prescribed by a doctor and used to lead to death. Since the suspension of life-sustaining treatment was institutionalized based on human dignity and patient autonomy, the question of whether assisted death can be legally justified in relation to the right to receive medical help to shorten one's life to die with dignity has recently been actively discussed. In Korea, since the suspension of life-sustaining treatment was institutionalized by the enactment of the Life-sustaining Treatment Decision Act in 2016, an amendment to the Life-sustaining Treatment Act was recently proposed to legalize Aid in Dying. The global trend is that human "Right to Die" is discussed in the division of life and death, from the suspension of life-sustaining treatment to assisted death, and again in the order of euthanasia. In this paper, we started discussing dignified death and institutionalized patients' right to self-determination, looked at the controversy in the United States, which legislated assisted death in many states since the 2000s, and analyzed the main contents of California's End of Life Option Act and the data after enforcement. The strict requirements for Aid in Dying, such as voluntary confirmation of patients' intentions and doctors' obligation to provide information, and the results of California's Aid in dying system, composed of relatively diverse races, were reviewed.

• 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.9 no.1
• /
• 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).