• Korea Journal of Hospital Management
• /
• v.27 no.1
• /
• pp.11-19
• /
• 2022

Purposes: This study was to investigate intention to exercise the patient's right of self-determination on adopting the non-benefit medical services and was to identify factors associated with intention to self-determined decision. Methodology: A total of 1,000 adult respondents aged 20 to 65 years were recruited using stratified random sampling and surveyed by online. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with intention to self-determined decision using SAS 9.4(SAS Institute Inc. Cary, NC, USA). Findings: 61.9% of total participants(n=592) had intention to exercise patient's right of self-determination on adopting the non-benefit medical services. Significant differences were observed in the exercise of self-determination in relation to prior explanation and opportunity for self-determination. Practical Implications: This study suggested that explanation duty of provider might influence on increasing intention to exercise the patient's right of self-determination. Considering appropriate use of non-benefit services, it is important to enhance explanation duty of provider.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.15 no.2
• /
• pp.3-29
• /
• 2014

The Supreme Court made a decision that the doctor cannot be punished for not taking a blood transfusion to the patient, depending on the patient's will to refuse the blood transfusion on June 24, 2014. The reason is that, in a special situation of conflict between the right of patients to self-determination and the duty of care, and when it was impossible to compare whether which has the superior value, if the doctor made a medical practice to respect either of those two values according to the professional sense, he cannot be punished. In principle, the doctor should make medical practices according to the patient's will. However, if the patient's life was at stake, I think, the doctor is obliged to try his best to save the life of patient. Yet to entrust the patient's life to the doctors professional sense, is to give up the obligation of the country to protect lives. In this regard, I think that the Supreme Court Decision should be reviewed, and that an ongoing research is needed.

• Hwankyungkyoyuk
• /
• v.15 no.1
• /
• pp.125-136
• /
• 2002

The ultimate goal of environmental education is to train the civilian who positively participates in solving environmental problems. To do above, not only accurate knowledge but also right value about environmental problems are needed. It is reasonable decision making that choose the first of all alternatives to solve the problems by accurate knowledge and right value of an individual. Teaching reasonable decision making in environmental education is related to raise the participant civilian toward regional environmental problem solving Simulation game helps that students have a opportunity to practice decision making skills about regional problems and give self-confidence to their decision making ability. So, the aim of this study is to present simulation games which is fit to elementary environmental education. The first one is for group decision making, the second one is for individual decision making. These can make a conclusion, winner and loser of games. But last one is open-ended game and aims to make explicit a variety of opinions, issues and conflicts to problem.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.15 no.1
• /
• pp.303-333
• /
• 2014

The right to self-determination in regard to one's body is a key element of human dignity, privacy and freedom. It is constitutionally enshrined in the guarantee of human dignity, in the general right of personality and, most concretely of all, in the right to physical integrity. In principle No-one may trespass another person's body against his will, whether this act improves his physical condition or not. This right of self-determination applies equally to healthy and to sick people. Hence everyone has the right either to permit or to refuse a medical treatment, unless he can not make a rational decision. If the person does not consent himself, for whatever reason, another one must do for him as guardian. Representation in consent to medical treatment is therefore the exception of self-determination rule. This article explored, 1. who can consent to the medical treatment in the case of the mentally incapacitated adult and the infant, 2. what kind of consent to the medical treatment can the deputy determinate for the mentally incapacitated adult and the infant, 3. when the deputy can not determinate without permission of the court, and 4. what can the doctor do in the case of conflict between minors and guardians.

• The Journal of the Korea Contents Association
• /
• v.19 no.6
• /
• pp.125-134
• /
• 2019

The purpose of this study is to explore the direction of decision support for senior citizens living alone by identifying the level of self-determination and desire for decision support. The survey was conducted on 300 elderly people living alone in five districts of Seoul. The analysis results are as follows: First, it has been shown that elderly living alone have thought that it is most important to reflect their decisions when deciding where to live. Second, respondents highly recognized that the need for support decision making as the age group grew. Third, it was found that the factors affecting the perception of the need to support decision-making by senior citizens living alone were age, trust in family and recognition of importance in decision-making. The study suggested the need for a specific, institutionalized system to support decision making for elderly living alone.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• Journal of Digital Convergence
• /
• v.12 no.6
• /
• pp.1-11
• /
• 2014

With the drastic development of technology for almost eternally saving digital information, cases for giving sufferings to a person who deserves to enjoy privacy have increased. So I study the right to be forgotten focusing on the collision between that right and freedom of expression. I also study the concept of the right to be forgotten and its legal basis for the protection of that right. That right can be protected mainly by the self-decision making right under the Article 10, and secondly the privacy right under the Article 17 of the Constitutional Law. The Press Arbitration Law can be applied to protect the right to be forgotten, but that Law needs the revision of time-limit clause for complain, protection clause for the right to ask to delete factual past article, and the clause of staleness doctrine for the consent of giving personal information.