의료상의 자기결정권 행사와 의사의 진료업무 조화의 법적인 문제 - 종교적인 이유로 수혈을 거부하는 경우를 중심으로
Legal issues arising from harmonizing the exercise of the right to self-determination with a physician’s act of performing medical treatments - focused on the refusal of blood transfusion for religious reasons
0
조회
0
다운로드
11
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
In modern days, it has been generally accepted that medical acts should be performed in a way that is strictly based on the exercise of patient’s selfdetermination. Jehovah’s Witnesses refuse blood transfusion and choose to accept non-blood treatment based on their religious beliefs. Regarding this,there arises a controversy as to whether a physician is obliged to force a blood transfusion in an emergency situation. The discussion in this article deals with the issue of validity of the legal decision to force a blood transfusion, especially on a child, and the legal responsibility of a physician when it comes to the matter of emergency-related blood transfusions. In case of adults, the patient’s right to self-determination is widely recognized. In case of children, with regard to forcing a blood transfusion,in consideration of the factors, such as a problematic prejudgment viewing the refusal of blood as disrespect for life, a debate on whether a transfusion is the only remedy for survival, the necessity of a careful approach of taking legal action to force a transfusion, fragile legal grounds for the preliminary injunction and the reduced possibility of criminal prosecution against physicians, it is logically concluded that there are greater advantages for both a physician and a patient in protecting the patient’s self-determination than forcing a blood transfusion. In view of civil and criminal law, a physician would be held responsible for any damage if a surgery was performed against the patient’s will. On the other hand, the facts that a number of bloodless treatments have been successfully performed in a way that they respect the patient’s right to self-determination even in the emergent situations and for the high-risk patient groups who have been traditionally considered to be in need of a transfusion, show that a physician’s decision to perform a bloodless treatment for a patient who refuses blood transfusion should not be viewed as equal to an act of support to abandoning one's life. Therefore, an act of performing bloodless surgery in an emergency does not constitute negligence on the part of physician.
Abstract
In modern days, it has been generally accepted that medical acts should be performed in a way that is strictly based on the exercise of patient’s selfdetermination. Jehovah’s Witnesses refuse blood transfusion and choose to accept non-blood treatment based on their religious beliefs. Regarding this,there arises a controversy as to whether a physician is obliged to force a blood transfusion in an emergency situation. The discussion in this article deals with the issue of validity of the legal decision to force a blood transfusion, especially on a child, and the legal responsibility of a physician when it comes to the matter of emergency-related blood transfusions. In case of adults, the patient’s right to self-determination is widely recognized. In case of children, with regard to forcing a blood transfusion,in consideration of the factors, such as a problematic prejudgment viewing the refusal of blood as disrespect for life, a debate on whether a transfusion is the only remedy for survival, the necessity of a careful approach of taking legal action to force a transfusion, fragile legal grounds for the preliminary injunction and the reduced possibility of criminal prosecution against physicians, it is logically concluded that there are greater advantages for both a physician and a patient in protecting the patient’s self-determination than forcing a blood transfusion. In view of civil and criminal law, a physician would be held responsible for any damage if a surgery was performed against the patient’s will. On the other hand, the facts that a number of bloodless treatments have been successfully performed in a way that they respect the patient’s right to self-determination even in the emergent situations and for the high-risk patient groups who have been traditionally considered to be in need of a transfusion, show that a physician’s decision to perform a bloodless treatment for a patient who refuses blood transfusion should not be viewed as equal to an act of support to abandoning one's life. Therefore, an act of performing bloodless surgery in an emergency does not constitute negligence on the part of physician.
참고문헌 (33)
- "유럽인권재판소, 302", 02호 판결, 제136항
- "대법원 2009다17417 전원합의체 판결", ~
- "유럽인권재판소 302", 02호 판결, 제140항
- "일본최고재판소 2000.2.29. 선고, 평성 10년 제1081호, 제1082호 판결 손해배상청구 사건", ~
- "대법원 79도1387호 판결", ~
- "2009. 7. 6.자 The Medical Herald", ~
- 김웅한, "신생아와 유아 심장 수술 시 심폐기회로 충진액의 최소화", The Korean Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, 42(4), pp.418~425 (2009), 대한흉부외과학회
- Michael Huebler, "Transfusion-Free Arterial Switch Operation in a 1.7-kg Premature Neonate Using a New Miniature Cardiopulmonary Bypass System", J Card Surg, 23, pp.358~360 (2008)
- 이재승, "독일에서의 수혈 거부의 문제. in: 환자의 권리와 무수혈 치료", pp.163~ (2005), 학영사
- 미국 판사협의회, "미성년자의 수혈 거부. in: 환자의 권리와 무수혈치료", pp.82~ (2005), 학영사
- "광주지방법원 2009노1622 판결", ~
- 이준학, "여호와의 증인 산모의 응급 제왕절개술시 마취관리", 대한마취과학회지, 38, pp.567~570 (2000)
- 최 일, "수혈을 거부하는 대량 혈복증 환자의 무술혈적 수술 및 치료", 대한외과학회지, 58(2), pp.280~284 (2000)
- 김재령, "여호와의 증인 환자에서 사과적 출혈 후 무수혈 치료 2예", 순천향의대논문집, 10(2), pp.1132~1133 (2004)
- 최수정, "수혈을 거부하는 혈액투석환자에서 상부위장관 출혈의 무술혈적 치료 1예", 순천향의대논문집, 10(2), pp.709~712 (2004)
- 임승기, "수술 중 예상치 못한 과출혈이 발생한 여호와의 증인 환자의 마취 1예", 영남의대학술지, 23(1), pp.96~102 (2006)
- 조성환, "여호와의 증인 환자에서 무수혈치료 경험 2예 —증례보고—", Korean Journal of Anesthesiology, 55(5), pp.621~624 (2008), 대한마취과학회
- 박창민, "응급실 내원 환자의 무수혈적 치료에 관한 결과분석", 대한응급의학회지, 18(1), pp.64~69 (2007), 대한응급의학회
- 전병열, "순천향대학교병원 무수혈센터 운영경험", The Korean Journal of Laboratory Medicine, 24(5), pp.308~313 (2004), 대한진단검사의학회
- Viele MK, "What can we learn about the need for transfusion from patients who refuse blood? The experience with Jehovah’s Witnesses", Transfusion, 34, pp.396~401 (1994)
- 박승준, "산과영역에서 수혈거부 환자의 무수혈적 치료에 대한 임상적 고찰", Korean Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 51(1), pp.82~88 (2008), 대한산부인과학회
- 류재욱, "여호와의 증인 환자의 폰탄전환술 및 부정맥수술", The Korean Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, 35(1), pp.48~51 (2002), 대한흉부외과학회
- 전창호, "여호와의 증인의 급성림프구성백혈병 환자 치험 1례", 대한소아혈액종양학회지, 10(1), pp.105~109 (2003)
- 이규열, "동종 수혈을 거부한 환자에서의 척추 유합술", 대한척추외과학회지, 14(2), pp.87~95 (2007)
- 이종현, "무수혈 심장 수술에 대한 임상적 고찰", Korean Journal of Anesthesiology, 52(5), pp.530~536 (2007), 대한마취과학회
- 나현희, "종교적인 이유로 수혈을 할 수 없는 환자에서 시행한 신이식 예", 대한이식학회지, 22, pp.27~273 (2008)
- "2010. 11. 17.자 의협신문", ~ (2010)
- Reyes G, "Bloodless cardiac surgery in Jehovah’s witnesses: outcomes compared with a control group", Rev Esp Cardiol, 60, pp.727~731 (2007)
- Spence RK, "Elective surgery without transfusion: influence of preoperative hemoglobin level and blood loss on mortality", Am J Surg, 159, pp.320~324 (1990)
- Putney LJ, "Bloodless cardiac surgery: not just possible, but preferable", Crit Care Nurs Q, 30, pp.263~270 (2007)
- 이정민, "Transfusion-free anesthetic management for open heart surgery in a neonate -A case report-", Korean Journal of Anesthesiology, 59, pp.141~145 (2010), 대한마취과학회
- "Sentenza della Pretura Circondariale di Roma, sez. II Dibattimentale, Reg. Gen. Not. Reato 23842", 96, Reg. Gen. Dibatt. 13163, pp.1997, ~
- "광주지방법원 2009노1622 판결", ~