Making Decisions for Unbefriended Patients on Life-Sustaining-Treatment in South Korea: Healthcare Providers’ Experiences
0
조회
0
다운로드
1
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Purpose: This study attempts to clarify the difficulties faced by healthcare professionals in South Korea in making and implementing Life-Sustaining Treatment (LST) decisions for vulnerable patients who lack legally competent proxy decision-makers. Materials and Methods: First, a keyword analysis was performed on the official responses of the National Health Agency of Korea to 750 questions from healthcare workers. Second, a survey probing the difficulties that healthcare professionals face in making LST decisions was administered to the ethics committee members of 246 medical institutions. Results: From the keyword analysis, 139 keywords were categorized into ten subcategories. The survey had a 32.5% response rate, and of the respondents, 41.98% faced difficulties in making decisions for unrepresented patients because of the absence of family members or due to inadequate evidence. Among these patients, 82.35% did not have decision-making ability at the time of need and 85.29% had no family members to consult with. Conclusion: Four categories of “unbefriended” patients were identified in this study. Additionally, in uncovering evidence on how LST decisions are implemented and creating a category of “unbe-friended patients,” this study underscores the need to expand the scope of legal proxies under the LST Decisions Act.
Abstract
Purpose: This study attempts to clarify the difficulties faced by healthcare professionals in South Korea in making and implementing Life-Sustaining Treatment (LST) decisions for vulnerable patients who lack legally competent proxy decision-makers. Materials and Methods: First, a keyword analysis was performed on the official responses of the National Health Agency of Korea to 750 questions from healthcare workers. Second, a survey probing the difficulties that healthcare professionals face in making LST decisions was administered to the ethics committee members of 246 medical institutions. Results: From the keyword analysis, 139 keywords were categorized into ten subcategories. The survey had a 32.5% response rate, and of the respondents, 41.98% faced difficulties in making decisions for unrepresented patients because of the absence of family members or due to inadequate evidence. Among these patients, 82.35% did not have decision-making ability at the time of need and 85.29% had no family members to consult with. Conclusion: Four categories of “unbefriended” patients were identified in this study. Additionally, in uncovering evidence on how LST decisions are implemented and creating a category of “unbe-friended patients,” this study underscores the need to expand the scope of legal proxies under the LST Decisions Act.
참고문헌 (27)
- "The Act on Decisions on Life-Sustaining Treatment for Patients in Hospice and Palliative Care or At the End of Life. Act No. 14013, February 3, 2016", ~ (2016)
- 최경석, "Legal and Ethical Issues Regarding End-of-Life Care in Korea", Journal of Asian Sociology, 45(1), pp.151~164 (2016), 사회발전연구소[DOI]
- Tanaka M, "Forgoing life-sustaining treatment – a comparative analysis of regulations in Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and England", BMC Medical Ethics, 21(1), pp.99~ (2020)
- "Monthly Statistics"[URL]
- Moore KA, "The problems with physician orders for life-sustaining treatment", JAMA, 315(3), pp.259~260 (2016)
- Connor DM, "The unbefriended patient : an exercise in ethical clinical reasoning", J Gen Intern Med, 31(1), pp.128~132 (2016)
- Gillett G, "Advance decisions in dementia : when the past conflicts with the present", J Med Ethics, 45(3), pp.204~208 (2019)
- Willmott L, "Reasons doctors provide futile treatment at the end of life: a qualitative study", J Med Ethics, 42(8), pp.496~503 (2016)
- 백수진, "연명의료결정법에서 자기결정에 대한 존중과 장애를 가진 환자의 권리 보호 방안", 생명윤리정책연구, 13(1), pp.101~116 (2019), 생명의료법연구소[DOI]
- 최지연, "연명의료결정법과 의료기관윤리위원회: 현황, 경험과 문제점", 한국의료윤리학회지, 22(3), pp.209~233 (2019), 한국의료윤리학회[DOI]
- 김명희, "연명의료결정법의 문제점 및 개선 방안", Journal of Hospice and Palliative Care, 21(1), pp.1~8 (2018), 한국호스피스완화의료학회[DOI]
- Kim JW, "Completion rate of physician orders for life-sustaining treatment for patients with metastatic or recurrent cancer : a preliminary, cross-sectional study", BMC Palliat Care, 18(1), pp.84~ (2019)
- Yoo SH, "Association of illness understanding with advance care planning and end-of-life care preferences for advanced cancer patients and their family members", Support Care Cancer, 28(6), pp.2959~2967 (2020)
- 장한철, "연명의료결정법의 문제점에 대한 고찰", 동북아법연구, 10(2), pp.371~399 (2016), 동북아법연구소[DOI]
- 허정식, "연명의료결정법의 시행과 제도적 실현을 위한 방안", Journal of Medicine and Life Science, 16(3), pp.80~83 (2019), 의과학연구소[DOI]
- 김정아, "연명의료 대리결정에서의 자율성의 두 관념: 호스피스ㆍ완화의료 및 임종과정에 있는 환자의 연명의료결정에 관한 법률 제18조를 중심으로", 한국의료윤리학회지, 20(1), pp.56~77 (2017), 한국의료윤리학회[DOI]
- Pope TM, "Unbefriended and unrepresented : better medical decision making for incapacitated patients without healthcare surrogates", Ga State Univ Law Rev, 33(4), pp.923~1019 (2017)
- Pope TM, "Making medical decisions for patients without surrogates", N Engl J Med, 369(21), pp.1976~1978 (2013)
- Connor DM, "The unbefriended patient : an exercise in ethical clinical reasoning", J Gen Intern Med, 31(1), pp.128~132 (2015)
- "Civil Act No. 14965, October 31, 2017", ~ (2017)
- Willmott L, "Reasons doctors provide futile treatment at the end of life: a qualitative study", J Med Ethics, 42(8), pp.496~503 (2016)
- Kim SH, "Factors influencing preferences of Korean people toward advance directives", Nurs Ethics, 18(4), pp.505~513 (2011)
- Buchanan AE, "Deciding for others : the ethics of surrogate decision making" (1989), Cambridge University Press
- Kim H, "Ethical frameworks for surrogates’ end-of-life planning experiences", Nurs Ethics, 24(1), pp.46~69 (2016)
- Cresp SJ, "Experiences of substitute decision makers in making decisions for older persons diagnosed with major neurocognitive disorder at end of life", JBI Database of Systematic Rev Implement Rep, 15(7), pp.1770~1777 (2017)
- 장병주, "연명의료결정법과 연명의료중단- 연명의료 결정에 관한 독일법과의 비교를 중심으로 -", 재산법연구, 33(4), pp.169~199 (2017), 한국재산법학회[DOI]
- "Supreme Court of Korea. Decision of May 21, 2009. 2009Da17417", ~ (2009)