• 의료법학
• /
• 제9권2호
• /
• 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.

• 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.

• Journal of Hospice and Palliative Care
• /
• 제25권1호
• /
• 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.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제9권2호
• /
• 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.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제18권2호
• /
• pp.105-138
• /
• 2017

이 글은 환자의 자기결정권에 관한 몇몇 대표적인 판례들을 연혁적으로 검토한 논문이다. 대법원은 과거 음주상태에서 농약을 음독하여 자살을 시도한 환자가 치료를 거부하자 치료를 포기한 의료진에게 특정 의학적 상태(응급상황)에서 의사의 생명보호의무가 환자의 자기결정권 존중보다 우선한다고 판단하여 의료과실을 인정하였다. 이후 대법원은 가족들의 요청에 의해 지속적 식물인간 상태인 환자에게 해당 환자의 의학적 상태(회복불가능한 사망의 단계 등)를 고려하고 환자의 의사를 추정하여 연명의료를 중단하게 하였다. 최근 대법원은 종교적 신념과 관련하여 수혈과 같은 필수적인 치료를 거부한 환자에 대하여 대법원은 환자의 생명 보호에 못지않게 환자의 자기결정권을 존중하여야 할 의무가 대등한 가치를 가지는 것으로 평가할 수 있는 판단 기준을 제시하였다. 인간의 존엄성에 근거한 환자의 자기결정권과 의사의 생명보호의무가 충돌하는 상황에 대하여 연혁적 판례 검토를 통해 법원의 입장이 우리 사회에서 환자의 주체적 역할과 자율성을 존중하는 방향을 반영하여 함께 변화되어 왔음을 확인할 수 있었다. 법원이 생명권이라는 최고의 가치만을 환자의 의사보다 더욱 우선하여 판단해오다가 적어도 명시적인 환자의 의사 또는 그렇지 못할 경우에 추정적 의사까지도 고려한 치료의 유보나 중단에 대하여 고려하기 시작한 것, 종교적 신념에 근거한 자기결정권의 행사로서의 수혈거부와 같은 치료거부에 대하여 충분한 정보에 근거한 치료거부의 몇 가지 적법한 요건들을 인정하기 시작했다는 것은 이후 우리나라 의료 환경에 적잖은 영향을 줄 것이고 의료현장에서 의료행위를 하는 의사들에게도 직 간접적인 지침이 될 것이다.

• Journal of Hospice and Palliative Care
• /
• 제23권2호
• /
• 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.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제21권2호
• /
• pp.75-103
• /
• 2020

의료기술의 발전과 환자 진료 향상 등을 목적으로 빅데이터나 인공지능에 의료정보를 분석·활용하면 유전적 질병이나 암 등 특이 질병 등에 대비할 수 있어 의료정보가 공유되어야 한다는 목소리가 높아지고 있다. 환자의 개인정보에 관한 활용과 보호는 동전의 양면과 같다. 의료기관 또는 의료인은 일반 정보처리자와 다른 환경적 특수성과 민감도가 높은 개인정보를 처리함에 있어 신중하여야 한다. 대체적으로 환자의 개인정보는 의료인이나 의료기관에서 수집·생성부터 파기까지 개인정보를 처리하고 있으나 의료법의 개인정보에 관한 용어 사용의 혼재되어 있거나 적용 범위가 명확하지 않아 판례의 해석에 의존하고 있다. 의료법 제23조의 전자의무기록에 저장·보관된 개인정보는 고유식별정보만을 의미하는 것이 아니라 진료기록부 등 의무기록의 개인정보와 동일하며, 그 내용은 인적 정보, 고유식별정보, 진료정보, 재산정보 등을 포함한다. 의료인이나 의료기관 개설자는 의료법 제24조의4 진료정보가 침해된 경우 제23조의 개인정보와 동일하게 취급하여야 하는지에 대해 전자의무기록에 환자의 민감정보가 기록·저장·보관되어 있으므로 특별히 개인정보 중 진료정보만을 의미한다고 볼 수 없다. 의료법 제19조의 정보 누설 금지는 업무상 알게 된 '비밀'에서 '정보'로 개정되었으나 명칭만 바뀌었을 뿐 보호법익은 형법상의 비밀과 동일하여 환자의 개인정보자기결정권을 보호하고 있지 못하다. 개인정보보호법과 지역보건법은 '업무상 알게 된 정보'에서의 보호법익을 개인정보자기결정권으로 보아 누출, 위조, 변조, 훼손 등 개인정보 침해 행위에 대하여 동일하게 벌칙을 규정하고 있다. 의료법의 개인정보 보호 규정은 용어의 정의가 불명확하여 정보주체 및 정보처리자, 국민에게 적용 범위 등 혼란을 일으킬 수 있어 용어가 통일적으로 정비되어야 할 필요가 있으며, 개인정보 보호에 관한 특별법인 의료법과 일반법인 개인정보보호법의 규정 내용이나 범위가 일치하지 않아 해석상 혼란이 생길 수 있어 개인정보 보호에 대하여 일정한 한계를 보인다. 환자의 개인정보는 민감정보로서 그 활용과 처리에 있어 안전하게 보호되어야 한다. 개인정보 보호 원칙에 따라 개인정보를 처리하여야 하며, 정보주체인 환자나 보호자의 권리인 사생활의 비밀과 자유, 인격권, 개인정보자기결정권을 보장하여야 할 것이다.

• 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
• /
• 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.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제13권1호
• /
• 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.