• 대한간호학회지
• /
• 제24권2호
• /
• pp.190-205
• /
• 1994

Respect for human life and respect for human dignity are two basic values to which organized nursing has urged its members to adhere in their service to mankind. Thus it is the nurses’ duty to provide health care in support of sustenance of life and to pay respect for the patient’s right to dignity. In practice, however, nurses may experience dilemmas between these duties much due to the de velopment of modern advanced techniques. These dilemmas have become more complex and difficult to resolve. Nurses are often faced with situations in which the terminally ill refuse professional care, posing serious conflicts between respect for human life and respect for human rights to self-determination. In such cases, resolution of the problem is not a simple matter, thus requires intensive study into the ethical questions related to the situation. The purpose of this study was to identify ethical problems that nurses experience in caring for terminally ill patients and explore the ways to the resolution of problems within the context of the situations. The methodology used for the study was a case study method which ‘New Casuistry’ proposed by Jonsen & Toulmin(1988) and the ‘Specified Principlism’ proposed by Degrazia(1992) as an alternative to old deductive and intuitive method. Cases were developed through semistructured indepth interviews according to the casutistry method. A total of seven nurses were interviewd who were caring for therminally ill patients. Four cases out of a total 14 cases were related to the topic. Through the case analysis it became evident that nurses appreciated other values more often than respect for the patient’s right to self-determination. These other values were convenience and efficiency in nursing practice in case 1, preservation of life above all other values in case 2, provision of nursing care to fulfill the nurse’s professional obligation at most in case 3, and respect for the family’s demand against the patient’s wish in case 4. This study showed that the most important ethical problems were conflict between respect for the patient’s right to self-determination and sustenance of life for the fulfillment of professional obligation. For this problem, benefit /burden analysis from the perspective of the patient and family for the promotion of patient’s wellbeing may be a way to resolve the conflict. Further, through these analysis it was shown that physicians’ and families’ opinions dominated in the decision - making and the opinions of nurses’ and patients’ tended not to be reflected. Thus the patient's right to his or her care was not readily respected. To solve this problem. nurses should make efforts to communicate reciprocally with their patients, family members and physicians in an effort to respect for their patient’s rights to life and diginity from the point of view and values of the patient. It is also important that nurses provide good basic nursing care up to the time of death regardless of decisions about providing or not aggressive treat-ment for chronically and terminally ill patients.

• 대한간호학회지
• /
• 제12권2호
• /
• pp.57-66
• /
• 1982

This study was undertaken to delineate the relationship between numerical score and the amount of nursing hours required in the nursing process. Score was a numerical description of the patients functional nursing needs. Therefore this study focused on standard nursing hours required by patient's self-care status. This study observed the 62 patients and 15 R.N. in H. university hospital from Aug. 7, 1982 to Aug. 13, 1982. 1. For the first time, each head nurse assessed self-care status by Schoening's self-care score-Minimal care patient (self-care score: 23, 24) was placed in Group Ⅰ, intermediate care patient (self-care score: 11∼22) was Group Ⅱ, and special care score: 0∼10) was Group Ⅲ. 2. We observed and recorded the nursing care received from nurses according to patient's group. (8AM∼4PM) 3. And, We observed and recorded the activities of nurses in order to determine standard nursing hours required. (8AM∼4PM) 4. If we apply the content of paragraph 3 to paragraph 2, we will predict the number of patient that nurse can care during day time by self-care status. The following results were obtained: 1) Patient's mean self-care score were Group I : 23.9 score Group Ⅱ：17.8 score Group Ⅲ : 1.6 score 2) Nursing hours required by patient's physical function(self-care status) status were Group I : 35 min. Group Ⅱ: 47.5 min. Group Ⅲ : 104.6 min. 3) Nurse's nursing time and distribution required in nursing activities during day duty were A.D.L. : 84.3min. (17.56％) Functional nursing activities : 279.9min. (58.31 ％) Education ＆ Emotional support : 11.3min. (2.35%) Task unrelated patients : 54min. (11.25%) Non Productive nursing care : 50. 5min. (10.52％) 4) Mean nursing hours required by each patient and the number of patient that nurse can rare during day duty by self-care status were Group I : 38.6min. 11.1 patients/1 nurse Group Ⅱ : 51.1min: 8.4 patients/1 nurse Group Ⅲ： 108.2min. 4 patients/1 nurse It seems reasonable that this could be done effectively as each-unit has an established standard for hours required, This not only allows time for planning of staff but helps to avoid the very human inclination to predict excessive staffing requirements by placing the majority of patients in high care group.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제21권2호
• /
• pp.37-73
• /
• 2020

우리 법원은 의료과오소송에서 진료상 주의의무 위반의 경우 신체적 법익침해에 따른 재산적·비재산적 손해배상을 인정하고, 설명의무 위반의 경우 신체적 법익침해와 상관없이 자기결정권 침해에 따른 위자료 배상을 인정한다. 이러한 판례의 태도에 대하여 설명의무 위반에 따른 위자료 배상이 진료과오의 책임요건을 회피하는 수단으로 활용되고 있다는 비판이 있다. 이들은 결과적으로 신체침해가 아니라 선택기회 상실에 대해 위자료 배상을 인정하는 우리 판례를 신체침해에 대한 배상으로 일원화할 것을 주장한다. 이에 본 논문에서는 판례가 신체적 법익침해론을 따르는 독일과 우리의 의료과오소송의 차이를 검토하고, 독일에서의 설명의무 위반에 대한 논의를 소개하였다. 그리하여 우리와 독일의 인격적 법익침해론과 신체적 법익침해론, 그리고 설명의무 위반에 따른 손해배상 논의의 차이를 확인하였다. 이를 바탕으로 우리의 판례법리 및 인격적 법익침해론의 입장에서 설명의무 위반에 따른 손해배상책임의 주요쟁점을 검토하였다. 의료행위는 의학적 적응성이 인정되는 한 위법한 신체침습이 아니다. 의료행위에 대한 동의 역시 의료행위의 위법성을 조각시키기 위한 것이 아니다. 의료행위에 대한 환자의 동의는 자기결정권의 실행이고, 환자의 자기결정권은 의사의 설명을 통해 구체화된다. 의사가 설명의무를 위반한 경우, 불설명 혹은 설명부족은 그 자체로 부작위에 위한 위법행위를 구성한다. 그로 인하여 침해되는 법익은 자기결정권이다. 환자는 생명·신체에 대한 이익으로 연결되지 않는 때에도 신체에 대한 주체로 자신의 신체에 행해질 행위에 대해 알고, 스스로 결정할 수 있는 권리가 있다. 이러한 권리가 침해되어 선택의 기회가 상실되었다면, 그 자체로 비재산적 손해상태가 인정되어 위자료를 배상하여야 한다. 따라서 의료행위에 악결과가 없어도, 성공한 의료행위였다고 하더라도, 의사의 설명의무 위반으로 환자의 자기결정권이 침해되었다면 위자료 배상은 인정된다. 자기결정권 침해에 따른 위자료 배상에 의료행위로 인한 악결과는 요구되지 않는다. 한편 설명의무 위반의 경우에도 신체손해에 대한 배상이 부정되는 것은 아니다. 설명의무 위반으로 침해된 법익을 자기결정권이고, 선택기회상실이 통상손해로 인정된다. 그러나 자기결정권 침해로 선택기회가 상실되었고, 의사가 설명하여 환자가 선택기회를 잃지 않았다면 다른 선택을 했을 것임이 분명하고, 다른 선택을 했다면 악결과를 피할 수 있었음을 증명하면 악결과에 대해서도 배상을 받을 수 있다. 다만 이때 신체손해는 자기결정권 침해에 따른 특별손해로 의사의 예견가능성이 문제되는 것이기 때문에 의사가 예견할 수 없었던 불가항력적 손해는 배상의 대상이 되지 않는다.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제9권1호
• /
• pp.319-382
• /
• 2008

As a withdrawing care's study, the purpose of this study is searching about withdrawing care's acceptance and circumstances through Bora-mae hospital case(chapter 1). Withdrawing life-sustaining treatment has various forms. Though the meaning of euthanasia, death with dignity, natural death, physician assisted suicide are duplicated, the meaning of those are different slightly. Firstly, this study looks about the difference of the those meaning and acceptance range(condition) by withdrawing care's forms(chapter 2). Bora-mae hospital case sentenced guilty about physician who discharged incompetent patient who was after surgery by patient's wife determination. This Bora-mae case that sentenced guilty about discharge against medical advise(DAMA) that is regarded to custom has brought intensive confliction of legal, social, medical aspect, Bora-mae hospital case has many legal problems. First, as to criminal law rule 250(murder), the problem is whether discharge and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment is commission or omission. this study concluded omission(district court: omission, appeal, supreme court: commission). Because legal denounce point of discharge and medical treatment withdrawing is omission that physician who is obligatory on patient to cure. If physician's act is regarded omission, it is necessary to determine whether he has guardian status and obligation. Without guardian status and obligation, omission crime can't exist. This study decided that physician had guardian status and obligation and foundation of guardian status was pre-action or acceptance of emergency patient. Physician's medical treatment duty finished when patient(or patient's guardian) demands discharge. But when patient death is foreseen and other possible treatment does not exist, his duty of life prolonging treatment does not finish. This originate from physician's social responsibility and public status that limits patient's private liberty. This study regarded physician's action as accomplice about whether physician's discharging action is accomplice or the principal offender(district court: the principal offender, appeal, supreme court: accomplice). Though the principal offender needs criminal determination and action, there is no this common determination and functional action control of physician in Bora-mae case(chapter 3). Bora-mae hospital case partly originated from deficiency of legal, institutive system including medical security system shortage, the instruction is 1. medical security system strengthening, 2. hospital ethical committee's activity strengthening, 3. institutionalization of withdrawing life-sustaining treatment, 4. acceptance of pre-decision making system, 5. sufficient persuasion of physician for patient and faithful writing of medical paper, 6. respect for patients' self-determination and rights, 7. consciousness's changing for withdrawing life-sustaining treatment and persistent education about medical ethics(chapter 4). Considering Bora-mae case, medical sector is not the dead ground of a criminal punishment. Intervention of criminal law in medical sector give rise to ill effect, that is, excess medical examination and treatment, safeguard treatment, delay of discharge from a hospital. Because sufficient guarantee of life becomes mere empty slogan under situation that impose a burden of heavy cost to family or hospital, public and systematic solution should be given(chapter 5).

• 의료법학
• /
• 제17권2호
• /
• pp.145-173
• /
• 2016

우리나라에서 전통적으로 환자의 자기결정권 내지 자율권은, 의사의 보고성 설명의무에 대응하는 알 권리 그리고 의사의 기여적 설명의무에 대응하는 수진 동의권 및 수진 거절권, 양자를 '중심'으로 해서 논의되어 왔다. 환자의 자율적 결정의 내용으로서 형성 피력되는, 자기 신체 및 의료 상황에 대해 알고 싶지 않은 희망과 그로 인한 이익에 관한 지위- 도덕적 법적 지위 - 는 환자로부터의 알 권리와 동의권의 포기 또는 (의사가 부담하는) 설명의무의 면제라는 소극적 지위 차원에서 인식되었다. 그리고 설명 동의 원칙 도그마의 적용에 의한 역기능 문제는 설명 동의 원칙의 적용 배제 및 그에 따른 의사의 책임 부인이라는 역시 소극적 접근법에 의해 '주로' 인식되었다. 즉 환자의 그러한 알고 싶지 않다는 '무지(無知)의 희망'을 실현시켜 줄 법적 수단이 환자의 '모를 권리' 및 의사의 '부작위 배려의무'라는 '적극적 지위'로 이해되고 인정되지 않았던 것이다. 이러한 당사자의 적극적 지위 설정이 전제되지 않으면 실제상 및 이론상 문제가 제기된다. 환자가 동의권을 포기한다고 선언하거나 의사의 설명의무를 면제한다고 표명했음에도 불구하고, 의사가 굳이 환자를 상대로 설명 내지 보고를 행하여 환자에게 큰 손해가 발생한 경우에, 의사의 그 행위를 규범적으로 어떻게 평가할 것인가가 문제인 것이다. 한편 의사가 설명의 역기능을 우려하여 설명을 행하지 않았고, 그 행태에 대해 적절한 것이란 평가가 가능한 경우에, 그 재량적 불설명의 적법성을 인정할 직접적 근거가 무엇인지를 밝히는 것 또한 문제이다. 이러한 문제를 해결하기 위해 근본적으로 환자에게 '모를 권리'라는 지위를, 의사에게 '배려의무'라는 지위를 인정할 필요가 있다. 요컨대 이 권리와 의무 개념은 환자의 자율성 관념의 충실화와 설명역기능 현상의 적정한 방지라는 법규범적 요구를 충족시키는 데에 매우 유용한 도구로서 수용할 수 있다.

• 가정∙방문간호학회지
• /
• 제11권1호
• /
• pp.5-13
• /
• 2004

The home health care industry has grown rapidly and can be expected to continue to grow in the foreseeable future. Home health care refers to the practice of nursing applied to clients with a health condition in the clients place of residence. clients and their designated care givers are the focus at home health nursing practice. The goal of care is to initiate. manage and evaluate the resources needed to promote the clients optimal level of well-being and function. Nursing activities necessary to achieve this goal may warrant preventive maintenance and restorative emphases to prevent potential problems from developing. Many project program were suggested home health care model for Korea's health care system and policy direction for expansion and establishment of home health care .But the aim of this paper is to provide on overview for theoretical frame work in home health care. Theories and conceptual frameworks or models are important nursing because they define and guide the boundaries of professional practice and identify key nurse-patient-caregiver relationships that emerge with caring. Following is the research with an investigation of the literature review in the University of Arizona international medline database, In conclusion, are as followers: First, many nursing theorists have had a tremendous impact on nursing practice. the following highlights those nursing theorists that are particularly helpful in understanding home health care. 1. Florence Nightingale : Our earliest theoretical legacy. Nightingale's believes are reflected in basic infection control practice such as hand washing and infectious waste disposal and are key nursing interventions in home care. 2. Martha Roger's :Science of unitary human beings theory. Rorger's believed that the focus of shared. non invasive healing modelities is the human environmental field rather than direct physical care. These modelities continue to evolve as our awareness (reflecting greater diversity, faster rhythms, motions, and ways of knowing) transcends time and space, allowing individuals to get in touch with their integral nature of unbroken wholeness. On people as ever changing energy fields have special relevance in home care especially with hospice and palliative care applications. 3. Madeline Leininger's; Transcultural nursing theory. Home care nurses move through a variety of communities and often care for patients from different cultural back grounds. Therefore Leininger's work has a good that with home care because home care nursing practice is very culturally focused. 4. Dorothea Orem's : Self care deficit theory. Orem's theory views care as something to be performed by both nurses and patients. The role of the nurse is to provide education and support that help patients acquire the necessary activities to perform self-care. Orem's theory is foundational to have care because it begins to truly acknowledge the role of the patient in managing his or her own health. which is referred to as self-care. 5. Margaret Neuman's; Health as expending consciousness theory. Neuman believes that health compasses disease and reflects an underlying pattern of person-environment interaction. A key application of 'Neuman's work to home care is for nurses to understand that health and illness do not necessarily exist at opposite ends of a continuum. 6. Jean Watson's: Theory of human caring. Watson's theory of human caring in nursing proposes human caring as the moral ideal of nursing. Nurses participate human caring to protect, enhance and preserve humanity by assisting individuals to fing meaning in illness. pain and existence and to help others gain self knowledge. self control. and self healing such thinking lends richness to theory development. as well as clinical practice in home care. Second, Robin Rice : Dynamic self determination for self care. (A theoretical framework for home care) Dynamical self determination for self care can be useful to home care nurses in a variety of ways. As research tool it can be reflected in the interview process when the home visit. The home care nurse's role is that of facilitator of patient self-determination for self care through numerous strategies. including patient education and case management.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제10권2호
• /
• 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.

• Journal of Hospice and Palliative Care
• /
• 제26권2호
• /
• pp.69-79
• /
• 2023

Purpose: This study aimed to investigate the involvement of patients who died from hematologic neoplasms in the decision-making process surrounding the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment (LST). Methods: A total of 255 patients diagnosed with hematologic neoplasms who ultimately died following decisions related to LST during their end-of-life period at a university hospital were included in the study. Data were retrospectively obtained from electronic medical records and analyzed utilizing the chi-square test, independent t-test, and logistic regression. Results: In total, 42.0% of patients participated in the decision-making process regarding LST for their hematologic neoplasms, while 58.0% of decisions were made with family involvement. Among these patients, 65.1% died in general wards and 34.9% in intensive care units (ICUs) as a result of decisions such as the suspension of LST. The period from the LST decision to death was longer when the decision was made by the patient (average, 27.15 days) than when it was made by the family (average, 7.48 days). Most decisions were made by doctors and family members in the ICU, where only 20.6% of patients exercised their right to make decisions regarding LST, a rate considerably lower than 79.4% observed in general wards. Decisions to withhold or withdraw LST were more commonly made by patients themselves than by their families. Conclusion: The key to discussing the decision to suspend hospice care and LST is respecting the patient's self-determination. If a patient is lucid prior to admission to the ICU, considerations about suspending LST should involve the patient input.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제21권1호
• /
• pp.3-32
• /
• 2020

판례는 의사의 위험설명의무 위반에 대하여 그것과 환자의 동의 사이의 인과관계가 불분명한 때에는 위자료를 지급할 의무를 지우고, 인과관계가 증명되는 경우에는 민사상 전손해배상, 형사상 업무상과실치사상의 책임을 묻는다. 그러나 어느 경우든 설명하지 아니한 위험이 실현될 것을 요구한다. 그 결과 대부분의 사안에서 위자료책임이 인정되었는데, 이는 위험설명의 대상이 되는 위험을 매우 넓게 인정하는 또 다른 판례와 결합하여 의료과오가 증명되지 아니할 때 우회적·간접적으로 일정 부분 배상을 확보하는 사실상의 기능을 갖는다. 그러나 의사의 설명의무가 의료문화로 정착해가면 갈수록 설명의무 위반이 줄어들고 그 결과 어쩌다 우연적으로 약간의 배상을 제공하는 외에는 오히려 설명대화를 위험의 형식적 나열로 변질시키는 부작용이 두드러지게 된다. 본래 설명의무는 환자의 자기결정을 돕기 위한 것이므로 발생한 악결과가 설명의무 위반에 귀속되는지 여부도 환자의 구체적 자기결정과정을 고려하여 가려야 한다. 즉, 환자가 특정 위험에 대하여 특별한 선호를 갖고 있는 경우에는 그 위험이 제대로 설명되었는지, 그리고 제대로 설명되지 아니한 바로 그 위험이 실현되었는지를 보아 그것이 인정되는 경우 전손해배상을 인정함이 옳고, 그 이외의 경우, 특히 환자가 전체적으로 자신이 감수하는 수준의 위험과 기대효과에 노출된 것인지에만 관심을 갖는 경우에는 개개의 위험의 설명 여부나 그 실현 여부를 문제 삼지 아니하는 것이 옳다. 뒤의 경우 세부사항을 설명하지 아니하였는데 그 위험이 실현되었다 하여 인과관계와 귀속관련을 고려하지 아니한 채위자료 상당의 책임을 인정하는 것은 정당화되기 어렵다. 이러한 점은 형사법에서 피해자 승낙에 의한 위법성조각에도 타당하다. 이 경우 이른바 가정적 승낙은 위법성조각사유로서 동의의 요건 자체에 흡수되고 독자적인 항변이 되지 아니하는 것이다.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제14권1호
• /
• pp.355-401
• /
• 2013

The first legislation for terminal health-care decision was California's Natural Death Act (NDA) of 1976 that permitted any adult person to execute a directive directing the withholding or withdrawal of life-sustaining procedures. Advance directive legislation has subsequently progressed on a state-by-state basis. By 1992, all 50 states, as well as the District of Columbia, had passed legislation to legalize some form of advance directive. This state legislation, however, has resulted in an often fragmented, incomplete, and sometimes inconsistent set of rules. Statutes enacted within a state often conflict and conflicts between statutes of different states are common. In an increasingly mobile society where an advance health-care directive given in one state must frequently be implemented in another, there is a need for greater uniformity. In 1993, the Uniform Law Commissioners approved the Uniform Health-Care Decisions Act (UHCDA) in order to bring order to the existing chaos. Unfortunately, the Commissioners waited too long to act. By the time the UHCDA was approved, nearly all states had passed legislation governing advance directives. Consequently, the UHCDA has achieved only a limited success, picking up but one or two enactments a year. The UHCDA is currently in effect in around 10 states: Alabama, Alaska, California, Delaware, Hawaii, Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, New Mexico, Tennessee, Wyoming. In these states the previous laws related to the subjects have been all repealed. The overall objective of the UHCDA is to encourage the making and enforcement of advance health care directives including living will or individual instruction, power of health-care attorney and to provide a means for making health care decisions for those who have failed to plan. The U. S. House of Representatives in 1991 enacted the Patient Self-Determination Act (PSDA). The Act stipulates that all hospitals receiving Medicaid or Medicare reimbursement must ascertain whether patients have or wish to have advance directives. The Patient Self- Determination Act does not create or legalize advance directives; rather it validates their existence in each of the states. Now in America, terminal health-care decision or advance directive for health care is common and universal system. The problem, however, is how to let more people use these good tools to make their lives more beautiful and honorable.