• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.10 no.2
• /
• pp.309-341
• /
• 2009

According to a case of Supreme Court's Sentence No. 2009DA17417 (May 21, 2009), the Supreme Court judges that 'the right to life is the ultimate one of basic human rights stipulated in the Constitution, so it is required to very limitedly and conservatively determine whether to discontinue any medical practice on which patient's life depends directly.' In addition, the Supreme Court admits that 'only if a patient who comes to a fatal phase before death due to attack of any irreversible disease may execute his or her right of self-determination based on human respect and values and human right to pursue happiness, it is permissible to discontinue life-sustaining treatment for him or her, unless there is any special circumstance.' Furthermore, the Supreme Court finds that 'if a patient who is attacked by any irreversible disease informs medical personnel of his or her intention to agree on the refusal or discontinuance of life-sustaining treatment in advance of his or her potential irreversible loss of consciousness, it is justifiable that he or she already executes the right of self-determination according to prior medical instructions, unless there is any special circumstance where it is reasonably concluded that his or her physician is changed after prior medical instructions for him or her.' The Supreme Court also finds that 'if a patient remains at irreversible loss of consciousness without any prior medical instruction, he or she cannot express his or her intentions at all, so it is rational and complying with social norms to admit possibility of estimating his or her own intentions on withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment, provided that such a withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment meets his or her interests in view of his or her usual sense of values or beliefs and it is reasonably concluded that he or she could likely choose to discontinue life-sustaining treatment, even if he or she were given any chance to execute his or her right of self-determination.' This judgment is very significant in a sense that it suggests the reasonable orientation of solutions for issues posed concerning withdrawal of meaningless life-sustaining medical efforts. The issues concerning removal of medical instruments for meaningless life-sustaining treatment and discontinuance of such treatment in regard to medical treatment for terminal cases don't seem to be so much big deal when a patient has clear consciousness enough to express his or her intentions, but it counts that there is any issue regarding a patient who comes to irreversible loss of consciousness and cannot express his or her intentions. Therefore, it is required to develop an institutional instrument that allows relevant authority to estimate the scope of physician's medical duties for terminal patients as well as a patient's intentions to withdraw any meaningless treatment during his or her terminal phase involving loss of consciousness. However, Korean judicial authority has yet to clarify detailed cases where it is permissible to discontinue any life-sustaining treatment for a patient in accordance with his or her right of self-determination. In this context, it is inevitable and challenging to make better legislation to improve relevant systems concerning withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment. The State must assure the human basic rights for its citizens and needs to prepare a system to assure such basic rights through legislative efforts. In this sense, simply entrusting physician, patient or his or her family with any critical issue like the withdrawal of meaningless life-sustaining treatment, even without any reasonable standard established for such entrustment, means the neglect of official duties by the State. Nevertheless, this issue is not a matter that can be resolved simply by legislative efforts. In order for our society to accept judicial system for withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment, it is important to form a social consensus about this issue and also make proactive discussions on it from a variety of standpoints.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.18 no.2
• /
• pp.105-138
• /
• 2017

This is case comments of several representative legal cases regarding self- determination right of patient. In a case in which an intoxicated patient attempted suicide refusing treatment, the Supreme Court ruled that the medical team's respect for the patient's decision was an act of malpractice, and that in particular medical situations (medical emergencies) the physician's duty to preserve life supersedes the patient's rights to autonomy. Afterwards, at the request of the patient's family, and considering the patient's condition (irrecoverable death stage, etc.) consistent with a persistent vegetative state, the Supreme Court deduced the patient's intention and decide to withdraw life-sustaining treatment. More recently, regarding patients who refuse blood transfusions or other necessary treatment due to religious beliefs, the Supreme Court established a standard of judgment that can be seen as conferring equal value to the physician's duty to respect patient autonomy and to preserve life. An empirical study of legal precedent with regard to cases in which the physician's duty to preserve life conflicts with the patient's autonomy, grounded in respect for human dignity, can reveal how the Court's perspective has reflected the role of the patient as a decision-making subject and ways of respecting autonomy in Korean society, and how the Court's stance has changed alongside changing societal beliefs. The Court has shifted from judging the right to life as the foremost value and prioritizing this over the patient's autonomy, to beginning to at least consider the patient's formally stated or deducible wishes when withholding or withdrawing treatment, and to considering exercises of self determination right based on religious belief or certain other justifications with informed refusal. This will have a substantial impact on medical community going forward, and provide implicit and explicit guidance for physicians who are practicing medicine within this environment.

• Journal of the Daesoon Academy of Sciences
• /
• v.43
• /
• pp.67-102
• /
• 2022

The purpose of this study is to analyze the human rights found in the North Korean Constitution and their core problem by focusing on elements of human rights suggested by Daesoon Jinrihoe's doctrine of Haewon-sangsaeng (解冤相生 the Resolution of Grievances for Mutual Beneficence). Haewon-sangsaeng is seemingly the only natural law that could resolve human resentment lingering from the Mutual Contention of the Former World while leading humans work for the betterment of one another. Haewon-sangsaeng, as a natural law, includes the right to life, the right to autonomous decision-making, and duty to act according to human dignity (physical freedom, the freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of press, etc.), the right to equal treatment in one's social environment, and the right to ensure the highest level of health through treatment. The North Korean Constitution does not have a character as an institutional device to guarantee natural human rights, the fundamental principle of the Constitution, and stipulates the right of revolutionary warriors to defend dictators and dictatorships. The right to life is specified so that an individual's life belongs to the life of the group according to their socio-political theory of life. Rights to freedom are stipulated to prioritize group interests over individual interests in accordance with the principle of collectivism. The right to equality and the right to health justify discrimination through class discrimination. The right to life provided to North Koreans is not guaranteed due to the death penalty system found within the North Korean Criminal Code and the Criminal Code Supplementary Provisions. The North Korean regime deprives North Koreans of their right to die with dignity through public executions. The North Korean regime places due process under the direction of the Korea Worker's Party, recognizes religion as superstition or opium, and the Korea Worker's Party acknowledge the freedoms of bodily autonomy, religion, media, or press. North Koreans are classified according to their status, and their rights to equality are not guaranteed because they are forced to live a pre-modern lifestyle according to the patriarchal order. In addition, health rights are not guaranteed due biased availability selection and accessibility in the medical field as well as the frequent shortages of free treatments.