• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.9 no.2
• /
• pp.77-107
• /
• 2008

In Republic of Chaina (Taiwan), Natural Death Act named "Anning Huauhe Yiliao Tiaoli" which means palliative and hospice care act was enacted in year of 2000. And enforced in the same year. Many scholars say that Taiwan's Act took Many U.S.A.'s acts such as 'Federal Patient Self-Determination Act 1990', 'California Natural Death Act 1976' and 'Washington Natural Death Act 1979' for a model. Taiwan's Act adopts a few outstanding systems - 'advance declarations' including 'living will' and 'durable power of attorney for health care', 'family-determination system' for a patient who is in a persistent unconscious state. This paper disusses this Act. 'The content is as follow: 1. A background of legislation. 2. The purpose of legislation. 3. The concept of terms. 4. Patient's self-determination. 5. Subrogated determination by family. 6. Keeping documents. 7. Punitive provision. 8. The relationship with euthanasia. 9. Controversial issues.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.14 no.1
• /
• 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.

• Journal of Hospice and Palliative Care
• /
• v.25 no.1
• /
• pp.1-11
• /
• 2022

The Act on Decisions on Life-Sustaining Treatment has been in effect since 2018 for end-of-life patients. However, only 20~25% of deaths of terminally ill patients comply with the law, while the remaining 75~80% do not. There is significant confusion in how the law distinguishes between those in the terminal stage and those in the dying process. These 2 stages can be hard to distinguish, and they should be understood as a single unified "terminal stage." The number of medical institutions eligible for life-sustaining treatment decisions should be legally expanded to properly reflect patients' wishes. To prevent unnecessary suffering resulting from futile life-sustaining treatment, life-sustaining treatment decisions for terminal patients without the needed familial relationships should be permitted and made by hospital ethics committees. Adult patients should be permitted to assign a legal representative appointed in advance to represent them. Medical records can be substituted for a patient's judgment letter (No. 9) and an implementation letter (No. 13) for the decision to suspend life-sustaining treatment. Forms 1, 10, 11, and 12 should be combined into a single form. The purpose of the Life-sustaining Medical Decisions Act is to respect patients' right to self-determination and protect their best interests. Issues related to the act that have emerged in the 3 years since its implementation must be analyzed, and a plan should be devised to improve upon its shortcomings.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.9 no.2
• /
• pp.53-75
• /
• 2008

The end of life problem in the United States has been evolved from the development of concept of brain death over last 50 yr. The invention of ventilator and the development of emergency medicine also played a key role to elongate the end stage of life and which caused the American people to ask a question about the patients self determination and refusing the unwarranted medical treatment in the view of the death with dignity. With regard to the patient unable to self determination, surrogate decision was also considered. To guarantee the self determination, The patient self determination act also enacted on the level of Federal regulation in 1990s. But no law has effectively dealt with the situation when medical treatment became futile. Along with the significant debates on literature and court cases. The American Medical Association's Council on Medical and Judical Affairs presented formal opinion and the Texas was the first states to regulate the medical futile situation in 1999. Even though that definition was in controversy, the concept of medical futility mainly focused on the doctors' right to refuse the treatment.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.18 no.2
• /
• pp.105-138
• /
• 2017

This is case comments of several representative legal cases regarding self- determination right of patient. In a case in which an intoxicated patient attempted suicide refusing treatment, the Supreme Court ruled that the medical team's respect for the patient's decision was an act of malpractice, and that in particular medical situations (medical emergencies) the physician's duty to preserve life supersedes the patient's rights to autonomy. Afterwards, at the request of the patient's family, and considering the patient's condition (irrecoverable death stage, etc.) consistent with a persistent vegetative state, the Supreme Court deduced the patient's intention and decide to withdraw life-sustaining treatment. More recently, regarding patients who refuse blood transfusions or other necessary treatment due to religious beliefs, the Supreme Court established a standard of judgment that can be seen as conferring equal value to the physician's duty to respect patient autonomy and to preserve life. An empirical study of legal precedent with regard to cases in which the physician's duty to preserve life conflicts with the patient's autonomy, grounded in respect for human dignity, can reveal how the Court's perspective has reflected the role of the patient as a decision-making subject and ways of respecting autonomy in Korean society, and how the Court's stance has changed alongside changing societal beliefs. The Court has shifted from judging the right to life as the foremost value and prioritizing this over the patient's autonomy, to beginning to at least consider the patient's formally stated or deducible wishes when withholding or withdrawing treatment, and to considering exercises of self determination right based on religious belief or certain other justifications with informed refusal. This will have a substantial impact on medical community going forward, and provide implicit and explicit guidance for physicians who are practicing medicine within this environment.

• Journal of Hospice and Palliative Care
• /
• v.23 no.2
• /
• pp.93-102
• /
• 2020

Purpose: The Act on Hospice and Palliative Care and Decisions on Life-Sustaining Treatment for Patients at the End of Life came into force in February 2018 in Korea. This study reviews the practices of end-of-life care for patients who withdrew or withheld life-sustaining treatment at a tertiary care hospital, addresses the limitations of the law, and discusses necessary steps to promote patient-centered self-determination. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the medical records of patients who died after agreeing to withhold life-sustaining treatment in 2018 at our university hospital. The cause of death, the intensity of end-of-life care, and other characteristics were reviewed and statistically analyzed. Results: Of a total of 334 patients, 231 (69%) died from cancer. The decision to stop life-sustaining treatment was made by family members for 178 patients overall (53.3%) and for 101 (43.7%) cancer patients, regardless of the patient's wishes. When the patient decided to stop life-sustaining treatment, the time from the authorization to withhold life-sustaining treatment to death was longer than when the decision was made by family members (28.7±41.3 vs 10.5±23.2 days, P<0.001). Conclusion: In many cases, the decision to discontinue life-sustaining treatment was made by the family, not by the patient. In order to protect human dignity based on the patients' self-determination, it is necessary for patients to understand their disease based on careful explanations from physicians. Ongoing survey-based research will be necessary in the future.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.21 no.2
• /
• pp.75-103
• /
• 2020

There is a growing voice that medical information should be shared because it can prepare for genetic diseases or cancer by analyzing and utilizing medical information in big data or artificial intelligence to develop medical technology and improve patient care. The utilization and protection of patients' personal information are the same as two sides of the same coin. Medical institutions or medical personnel should take extra caution in handling personal information with high environmental distinct characteristics and sensitivity, which is different from general information processors. In general, the patient's personal information is processed by medical personnel or medical institutions through the processes of collection, creation, and destruction. Still, the use of terms related to personal information in the Medical Service Act is jumbled, or the scope of application is unclear, so it relies on the interpretation of precedents. For the medical personnel or the founder of the medical institution, in the case of infringement of Article 24(4), it cannot be regarded that it means only medical treatment information among personal information, whether or not it should be treated the same as the personal information under Article 23, because the sensitive information of patients is recorded, saved, and stored in electronic medical records. Although the prohibition of information leakage under Article 19 of the Medical Service Act has a revision; 'secret' that was learned in business was revised to 'information', but only the name was changed, and the benefit and protection of the law is the same as the 'secret' of the criminal law, such that the patient's right to self-determination of personal information is not protected. The Privacy Law and the Local Health Act consider the benefit and protection of the law in 'information learned in business' as the right to self-determination of personal information and stipulate the same penalties for personal information infringement such as leakage, forgery, alteration, and damage. The privacy regulations of the Medical Service Act require that the terms be adjusted uniformly because the jumbled use of terms can confuse information subjects, information processors, and shows certain limitations on the protection of personal information because the contents or scope of the regulations of the Medical Service Law for special corporations and the Privacy Law may cause confusion in interpretation. The patient's personal information is sensitive and must be safely protected in its use and processing. Personal information must be processed in accordance with the protection principle of Privacy Law, and the rights such as privacy, freedom, personal rights, and the right to self-determination of personal information of patients or guardians, the information subject, must be guaranteed.

• Journal of Hospice and Palliative Care
• /
• v.26 no.2
• /
• 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.

• 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.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.13 no.1
• /
• pp.359-395
• /
• 2012

In a broad term, health and medical data means all patient information that has been generated or circulated in government health and medical policies, such as medical research and public health, and all sorts of health and medical fields as well as patients' personal data, referred as medical data (filled out as medical record forms) by medical institutions. The kinds of health and medical data in medical records are prescribed by Articles on required medical data and the terms of recordkeeping in the Enforcement Decree of the Medical Service Act. As EMR, OCS, LIS, telemedicine and u-health emerges, sharing and protecting digital health and medical data is at issue in these days. At medical institutions, health and medical data, such as medical records, is classified as "sensitive information" and thus is protected strictly. However, due to the circulative property of information, health and medical data can be public as well as being private. The legal grounds of health and medical data as such are based on the right to informational self-determination, which is one of the fundamental rights derived from the Constitution. In there, patients' rights to refuse the collection of information, to control recordkeeping (to demand access, correction or deletion) and to control using and sharing of information are rooted. In any processing of health and medical data, such as generating, recording, storing, using or disposing, privacy can be violated in many ways, including the leakage, forgery, falsification or abuse of information. That is why laws, such as the Medical Service Act and the Personal Data Protection Law, and the Guideline for Protection of Personal Data at Medical Institutions (by the Ministry of Health and Welfare) provide for technical, physical, administrative and legal safeguards on those who handle personal data (health and medical information-processing personnel and medical institutions). The Personal Data Protection Law provides for the collection, use and sharing of personal data, and the regulation thereon, the disposal of information, the means of receiving consent, and the regulation of processing of personal data. On the contrary, health and medical data can be inspected or delivered of the copies, based on the principle of restriction on fundamental rights prescribed by the Constitution. For instance, Article 21(Access to Record) of the Medical Service Act, and the Personal Data Protection Law prescribe self-disclosure, the release of information by family members or by laws, the exchange of medical data due to patient transfer, the secondary use of medical data, such as medical research, and the release of information and the release of information required by the Personal Data Protection Law.