• The Journal of the Korea Contents Association
• /
• v.10 no.10
• /
• pp.304-317
• /
• 2010

The purpose of this study is to research on attitudes toward legalization of death with dignity. The respondents are 561 adults aged 20 years old and over, living in Seoul and Kyunggi Province. Research questionnaire consist of 28 questions concerning general background, personal experiences of death, attitudes toward death, pros and cons on death with dignity and legalization. Statistical analyses employ frequency, mean, cross tab, and t-test. 87.3% of respondents agree the legalization of death with dignity. The persons who are older, self-employed, and production employees, get married, live with spouse, believe buddhism, experience care for the death, believe life after death, recognize the necessity of testament agree more on death with dignity. The first requisite for legalization of death with dignity is the standard of judgement concerning self decision on death with dignity. The decision makers are prioritized by self, family member in order. The necessary services for decisions on death with dignity are the mediation role between medical team and family, medical information about illness prognosis and prolongation, psychological counselling on depression.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.25 no.1
• /
• pp.193-222
• /
• 2024

From a global trend, discussions on the patient's death with dignity are gradually progressing from the issue of withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment to the issue of whether to allow assisted death and its requirements. Several states in the United States and Western European countries such as Canada, Belgium, and the Netherlands have institutionalized treatment to accelerate the time of death through the assistance of doctors. In France, after a long period of raising and reviewing issues, discussions on related legislation are taking place at a slower pace than in other European countries. In France, social discussions and legislative attempts on death with dignity have been actively conducted since the late 20th century. The Leonetti Act of 2005 prohibited the continuation of meaningless treatment against the will of patients, and after the Clay-Leonetti Act of 2016, it was legalized to administer intensive and continuous sedatives to patients until death. However, unlike many neighboring European countries, treatment that speeds up the time of death itself is still prohibited in France, even if the patient wants. As the existential and universal question of whether to allow dying patients to die painlessly with the help of a doctor has recently emerged as an important issue, a number of lawmakers have submitted legislation to legalize assisted death. This paper examines the legislative process developed in relation to patients' rights to dignified death in France, and compares and reviews French legislation that attempts to legalize assisted death with the amendment to the Korean Life-Sustaining Treatment Act.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.20 no.1
• /
• pp.3-24
• /
• 2019

This research examines the constitutional meaning of the right to health through reviewing the decisions of the Constitutional Court and proposed amendment of the Constitution issued by the President. This article further discusses the relationship between the right to a humane livelihood and the right to health. Health is a fundamental freedom and inalienable human right which is a prerequisite to accomplish individual's independent activity and realization of value. Thus, the government is obligated to protect and uphold the right. Article 36(3) of the Constitution delineates the government's duty to protect and fulfill the right to health. Through the interpretation of both Article 36(3) and Article 34 of the Constitution, I suggest that the right to health implies 'the right to social security for health'. The Constitutional Court has narrowly interpreted the scope of the right to a humane livelihood by defining the term as "minimum material living standards". However, it should be interpreted as 'the right to enjoy a healthy and cultural life for human dignity' and setting the level of protection is solely on the discretion of the legislative branch. Ultimately, the judicial review on the right to a humane livelihood connects with the issue of rational control for legislative discretion.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.10 no.2
• /
• pp.309-341
• /
• 2009

According to a case of Supreme Court's Sentence No. 2009DA17417 (May 21, 2009), the Supreme Court judges that 'the right to life is the ultimate one of basic human rights stipulated in the Constitution, so it is required to very limitedly and conservatively determine whether to discontinue any medical practice on which patient's life depends directly.' In addition, the Supreme Court admits that 'only if a patient who comes to a fatal phase before death due to attack of any irreversible disease may execute his or her right of self-determination based on human respect and values and human right to pursue happiness, it is permissible to discontinue life-sustaining treatment for him or her, unless there is any special circumstance.' Furthermore, the Supreme Court finds that 'if a patient who is attacked by any irreversible disease informs medical personnel of his or her intention to agree on the refusal or discontinuance of life-sustaining treatment in advance of his or her potential irreversible loss of consciousness, it is justifiable that he or she already executes the right of self-determination according to prior medical instructions, unless there is any special circumstance where it is reasonably concluded that his or her physician is changed after prior medical instructions for him or her.' The Supreme Court also finds that 'if a patient remains at irreversible loss of consciousness without any prior medical instruction, he or she cannot express his or her intentions at all, so it is rational and complying with social norms to admit possibility of estimating his or her own intentions on withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment, provided that such a withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment meets his or her interests in view of his or her usual sense of values or beliefs and it is reasonably concluded that he or she could likely choose to discontinue life-sustaining treatment, even if he or she were given any chance to execute his or her right of self-determination.' This judgment is very significant in a sense that it suggests the reasonable orientation of solutions for issues posed concerning withdrawal of meaningless life-sustaining medical efforts. The issues concerning removal of medical instruments for meaningless life-sustaining treatment and discontinuance of such treatment in regard to medical treatment for terminal cases don't seem to be so much big deal when a patient has clear consciousness enough to express his or her intentions, but it counts that there is any issue regarding a patient who comes to irreversible loss of consciousness and cannot express his or her intentions. Therefore, it is required to develop an institutional instrument that allows relevant authority to estimate the scope of physician's medical duties for terminal patients as well as a patient's intentions to withdraw any meaningless treatment during his or her terminal phase involving loss of consciousness. However, Korean judicial authority has yet to clarify detailed cases where it is permissible to discontinue any life-sustaining treatment for a patient in accordance with his or her right of self-determination. In this context, it is inevitable and challenging to make better legislation to improve relevant systems concerning withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment. The State must assure the human basic rights for its citizens and needs to prepare a system to assure such basic rights through legislative efforts. In this sense, simply entrusting physician, patient or his or her family with any critical issue like the withdrawal of meaningless life-sustaining treatment, even without any reasonable standard established for such entrustment, means the neglect of official duties by the State. Nevertheless, this issue is not a matter that can be resolved simply by legislative efforts. In order for our society to accept judicial system for withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment, it is important to form a social consensus about this issue and also make proactive discussions on it from a variety of standpoints.