무의미한 연명치료 중단을 위한 제 요건 - 서울고등법원 2009. 2. 10, 2008나116869판결을 중심으로 -

Abstract

Modern medicine started from struggles for overcoming a variety of incurable diseases and has made steady and successful efforts to liberate human being from suffering of diseases, but involves unprecedented side effects as well, including those related to holistic medicine primarily for terminal diseases. On the one hand, the advancement of medical science and technologies has its own implications in a sense that it contributed to prolonging the life of patients. On the other hand, physical and mental pain patients feel has robbed terminal patients of even their own dignity. In this context, patients' self-determination right for death of dignity is to give a chance to terminal patients to opt for liberate themselves from overplus of pain. And this study focuses primarily on discussing how to resolve potential conflicts concerned with those issues of life. In order to respect the self-determination of patients, American judicial precedents and legislation has permitted patients' right to deny any medical treatment for prolonging life, i.e. passive euthanasia(easy death) since 1970's, to the certain extent allowable legally. In particular, Oregon Death with Dignity Act has acknowledged that terminal patients may commit physician-assisted suicide. Such a physician-assisted suicide of patients becomes a new way of death which has been never discussed in terms of active euthanasia since 1990's. Unlike passive euthanasia in which physician administers lethal dose of medicine to a patient for the purpose of his death, the active euthanasia is a mean for patients to use such lethal dose of medicine as prescribed by physician at their option for suicide. Crucial difference between active and passive euthanasia can be determined by whether ultimate behavior causing death of a patient is committed by physician or the patient himself. Thus, it is found that active euthanasia has faced relatively low objections against legitimation of physician-assisted suicide of patients in a sense that ultimate behavior to cause death of a patient is attributed to the patient himself, so it is easier for active euthanasia to attribute the death of a patient to his own responsibility than passive euthanasia, and the former also has relatively low risk of misuse or abuse in comparison with the latter. In reality, it is obvious that physician-assisted suicide of patients is an issue unacceptable among the public, since physician's behavior for active euthanasia may face other legal responsibilities such as aiding and abetting suicide as provided in criminal law. However, there have been proposed needs for exemption from any legal responsibility for physician-assisted suicide of terminal patients in respect of their self-determination right, as mentioned above. In order reflect such needs and perspectives on local legislation, the Oregon state(USA) has newly established and enforced the Oregon Death with Dignity Act. The ultimate purpose of this study is to address historical backgrounds concerned with legislation of the Oregon Death with Dignity Act as well as major legal contents in said act to examine the issues about death of dignity, which may be pointed out in terms of hospice medicine in the future, and thereby consider potential problems concerned with death of dignity.