본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

의사의 연명치료중단행위에 대한 형법적 정당화 요건과 구조

The Structure of Justification of the Physician’s Withdrawal of Life-Sustaining Treatment

0

조회

0

다운로드

5

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

주제분류법학

초록

The purpose of this study is to search the requirements and structure of the “Physician’s Withdrawal of Life-Sustaining Treatment(LST)” or “physician-assisted suicide(PAS)”, and to justify their actions in the context of the Criminal Law. If the patient died by “(Murder by) “the Physician’s Withdrawal of LST” or “PAS”, this comes under Article 250 Section 1(Murder), Article 252 Section 1(Murder upon the Request), Article 252 Section 2(aiding to commit suicide) of the Criminal Code. But, if this meets certain conditions, “the Physician’s Withdrawal of LST” or “PAS” could be justified. (1) The basic conditions: ⅰ) The Physician must behavior. ⅱ) It must meet the Justification of medical Treatment. (2) The objective conditions : ⅰ) The patient must be in an incurable and irreversible disease that has been medically confirmed and will, within reasonable medical judgment, produce death. ⅱ) Treatment of this stage must be a medical futility in the end-of-life care. (3) The objective condition : It must be a patient’s informed consent, self determination about “the Withdrawal of LST” or “PAS”. If the case meets all the conditions for its justification or if it does not meet some conditions, we will study the structure of justification about “the Physician’s Withdrawal of LST” or “PAS” in criminal law. (1) First, since this issue is related to people’s lives, there are various types of conflicts about the value. Thus, it is necessary to enact laws for physicians to be relieved from the legal disputes and to resolve specific problems (procedural legitimacy) related this process. (2) Meanwhile, it is necessary to solve the problems, related legislations are not exist, or legislation exists, but its interpretations are controversial, or exempted from the legislation. ⅰ) If it is clear that the patient is in an incurable and irreversible disease, the withdrawing of LST or aiding the patient to commit suicide would be legally allowed depending on their medical decision, regardless of the patient’s own will. But if it is clear that the patient is in an curable and reversible disease,the Physician should continue the treatment for patients. ⅱ) If it is not clear whether the patient has an incurable and irreversible disease or not, and if treatment in this situation is medical futility-within reasonable medical judgment-, “the Physician’s withdrawing of LST”or “PAS” can be allowed according to patient’s current, voluntary and explicit will for the purpose of ending his or her life (legitimacy on right to self determination). Thus, if the legal requirements for justification, including the patient’s will, are established, then they can be evaluated, it is an act which does not violate the Normal Social Rules (Korean Criminal Act Article 20).

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to search the requirements and structure of the “Physician’s Withdrawal of Life-Sustaining Treatment(LST)” or “physician-assisted suicide(PAS)”, and to justify their actions in the context of the Criminal Law. If the patient died by “(Murder by) “the Physician’s Withdrawal of LST” or “PAS”, this comes under Article 250 Section 1(Murder), Article 252 Section 1(Murder upon the Request), Article 252 Section 2(aiding to commit suicide) of the Criminal Code. But, if this meets certain conditions, “the Physician’s Withdrawal of LST” or “PAS” could be justified. (1) The basic conditions: ⅰ) The Physician must behavior. ⅱ) It must meet the Justification of medical Treatment. (2) The objective conditions : ⅰ) The patient must be in an incurable and irreversible disease that has been medically confirmed and will, within reasonable medical judgment, produce death. ⅱ) Treatment of this stage must be a medical futility in the end-of-life care. (3) The objective condition : It must be a patient’s informed consent, self determination about “the Withdrawal of LST” or “PAS”. If the case meets all the conditions for its justification or if it does not meet some conditions, we will study the structure of justification about “the Physician’s Withdrawal of LST” or “PAS” in criminal law. (1) First, since this issue is related to people’s lives, there are various types of conflicts about the value. Thus, it is necessary to enact laws for physicians to be relieved from the legal disputes and to resolve specific problems (procedural legitimacy) related this process. (2) Meanwhile, it is necessary to solve the problems, related legislations are not exist, or legislation exists, but its interpretations are controversial, or exempted from the legislation. ⅰ) If it is clear that the patient is in an incurable and irreversible disease, the withdrawing of LST or aiding the patient to commit suicide would be legally allowed depending on their medical decision, regardless of the patient’s own will. But if it is clear that the patient is in an curable and reversible disease,the Physician should continue the treatment for patients. ⅱ) If it is not clear whether the patient has an incurable and irreversible disease or not, and if treatment in this situation is medical futility-within reasonable medical judgment-, “the Physician’s withdrawing of LST”or “PAS” can be allowed according to patient’s current, voluntary and explicit will for the purpose of ending his or her life (legitimacy on right to self determination). Thus, if the legal requirements for justification, including the patient’s will, are established, then they can be evaluated, it is an act which does not violate the Normal Social Rules (Korean Criminal Act Article 20).

참고문헌 (20)

  1. 김장한, "존엄사에 대한 미국의 법제", 의료법학, 9(2), pp.53~75 (2008), 대한의료법학회
  2. 김천수, "안락사 내지 치료중단과 불법행위책임", 의료법학, 6(1) (2005), 대한의료법학회
  3. 안락사, 존엄사, 무의미한 치료 중단의 구분. in: 임종환자의 연명치료 중단에 관한 대한의학회 의료윤리지침 제1보(안락사ㆍ존엄사에 관한 심포지엄 종합보고서), "손명세", 대한의학회, ~ (2002)
  4. 이백휴, "의사의 연명치료중단행위에 관한 형법적 고찰", 박사, pp.2010
  5. 이백휴, "의사의 치료행위에 관한 형법적 고찰", 석사, pp.2001
  6. 이상돈, "치료중단과 형사책임-의료와 법의 합리적 소통과 책임귀속" (2002), 법문사
  7. 죽음과 뇌사의 의학적 측면. in: 임종환자의 연명치료 중단에 관한 대한의학회 의료윤리지침 제1보 (안락사ㆍ존엄사에 관한 심포지엄 종합보고서), "이상복", 대한의학회, ~ (2002)
  8. 이상용, "안락사, 그 용어의 재음미", 비교형사법연구, 5(2-1), pp.5~174 (2003), 한국비교형사법학회
  9. 이세화, "무의미한 연명치료의 중단에 관한 소고", 영남법학, (29), pp.275~310 (2009), 법학연구소
  10. 이재상, "안락사의 형태와 허용한계", 김종원 교수 화갑기념논문집 (1991)
  11. 정규원, "무의미한 치료에 대한 형법적 판단", 법학논총, 23(2), pp.189~204 (2006), 법학연구소
  12. 정규원, "패해자의 승낙에 대한 연구-의료행위를 중심으로-", 박사, pp.1999
  13. 정웅석, "세칭 보라매병원 사건의 제1심, 제2심 판결에 대한 형사법적 고찰", 의료법학, 4(1) (2003), 대한의료법학회
  14. 한정환, "의식불명 상태의 환자에 대한 의사의 치료의무", 형사법연구, (18), pp.233~252 (2002), 한국형사법학회
  15. 한국의료법학회, "의료와 성년후견", 2009 추계학술대회 자료집 (2009)
  16. 안락사에 관한 연구, "허일태", 한국형사정책연구원, ~ (1994)
  17. 허일태, "의학적 충고에 반한 퇴원조치와 의사의 형사책임", 비교형사법연구, 4(2) (2002), 한국비교형사법학회
  18. Amir Halevy, M.D., "Medical futility, patient autonomy, and professional integrity: finding the appropriate balance, Health Matrix", Journal of Law-Medicine, 18(2) (2008)
  19. R Wiethölter, "Materialization and Proceduralization in Modern Law. in: Dilemmas of Law in the Welfare State, Berlin", ~ (1986)
  20. Truog RD, "THE PROBLEM WITH FUTILITY", New England Journal of Medicine (1992)

관련 논문AI추천

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (9건)