• 한국콘텐츠학회논문지
• /
• 제10권4호
• /
• pp.317-326
• /
• 2010

인간의 존엄과 가치의 존중은 모든 기본권의 이념적 전제인 동시에 모든 기본권 보장의 목적이므로, 이러한 목적을 달성하는데 필요한 자유와 권리는 그 어느 것이나 보장되어야 한다. 인간의 존엄과 가치의 실현이라는 목적 달성을 방해하는 행위는 금지되어야 한다. "인간으로서의 존엄과 가치를 가진다."는 개인 대 국가의 관계에서 국가는 개인을 위하여 존재한다는 반 전체주의적 이념을 선언한 것이며, 헌법의 각 조항과 법령의 효력이 문제될 경우 그에 관한 궁극적 해석기준이 된다. 또한 행복추구권은 인간이 행복을 추구하는데 필요한 것이며 헌법에 열거되지 아니한 자유와 권리까지도 그 내용으로 하는 포괄적 기본권으로 보고 있으나, 최소한의 수준에서 사회적 기본권과 같은 적극적 권리성의 성격도 볼 수 있다. 헌법재판소의 결정례에 따르면 행복추구권은 일반적 행동의 자유권, 개성의 자유로운 발현권, 자기결정권의 영역으로 범주화되고 있기에 의의와 연혁입법례를 통해 행복추구권의 중요성을 강조하고자 한다.

• International Journal of Advanced Culture Technology
• /
• 제10권2호
• /
• pp.79-85
• /
• 2022

Article 10 of the Constitution All citizens have dignity and values as humans and have the right to pursue happiness. There is a need for support measures such as a means to realize the respect of dignity and values as humans, and how to efficiently maintain policies on welfare for the elderly classified as the socially disadvantaged. It was considered necessary to develop an elderly-friendly city for economic, physical, and social life. Dasan Jeong Yak-yong's respect for adults was to practice the ideology of Confucianism, so this was the most important thing in the past Joseon Dynasty. In particular, it was considered important to think of adults first in practicing filial piety.This study focuses on the long-term care insurance system for the elderly, one of the welfare policy measures for the elderly. The significance of implementing the long-term care insurance system for the elderly is to benefit not only the elderly, but also all generations, including the middle-aged and children who were in charge of long-term care. To this end, the government should properly manage the factors of the social insurance financial crisis caused by the low birth rate and aging population.In addition, concerns about health insurance are high, so it is necessary to secure an appropriate level of government budget for health insurance financial management and minimize unnecessary non-benefit. In addition, it is necessary to induce appropriate medical use through connection with construction medical insurance.

• 대한지역사회작업치료학회지
• /
• 제8권3호
• /
• pp.49-57
• /
• 2018

목적 : 본 연구는 작업치료사의 인권감수성 수준에 대하여 알아보고 특성에 따른 인권감수성의 차이를 비교하여 향후 작업치료사를 대상으로 인권 교육 프로그램 개발에 기초 자료를 제공하고 인권옹호자로서의 역할을 강조하고자 하였다 연구방법 : 본 연구의 대상자는 편의표집에 의해 선정된 작업치료사로 인권감수성을 측정할 수 있는 5개의 사례 이루어진 30개의 질문과 대상자의 일반적 특성을 알아보는 7가지 질문으로 구성된 설문을 온라인으로 배포, 수집하여 총 165부를 분석하였다. 결과 : 작업치료사의 인권감수성 평균은 $33.52{\pm}14.96$점이었고 하위 영역에 따른 인권감수성 평균은 상황지각 $20.44{\pm}2.32$, 결과지각 $19.85{\pm}2.32$, 책임지각 $19.14{\pm}2.21$ 순으로 나타났다. 사례 중 노인의 행복추구권($12.72{\pm}1.56$)에 대한 인권감수성이 가장 높았으며 장애인의 신체의 자유권($11.04{\pm}2.23$)이 가장 낮은 수준이었다. 작업치료사의 일반적 특성에 따른 인권감수성 중 연령, 교육정도, 근무기관과 임상경력에서 인권감수성의 차이를 보였다. 결론 : 작업치료사의 인권감수성은 연령과 임상경력에 따라 증가하는 것으로 나타났으며 다양한 인권관련 상황에 노출될수록 인권감수성이 증가함을 보였다. 또한 상황지각에 대한 점수가 가장 높은 것은 클라이언트-중심의 중재를 위한 공감능력이 중요하기 때문이다. 따라서 본 연구를 통해 인권교육의 필요성과 교육 대상자의 특성을 고려한 교육의 다양성이 필요함을 알 수 있었다.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제10권2호
• /
• 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.