메뉴 건너뛰기
Library Notice
Institutional Access
If you certify, you can access the articles for free.
Check out your institutions.
ex)Hankuk University, Nuri Motors
Log in Register Help KOR
Subject

Withdrawing Life-Sustaining Treatment under the Constitutional Law
Recommendations
Search
Questions

헌법상 연명치료 중단 : 대법원 2009. 5. 21. 선고 2009다17417 판결의 의의를 중심으로

논문 기본 정보

Type
Academic journal
Author
Huh Soon-Chul (경남대학교)
Journal
Korean Comparative Public Law Association Public Law Journal Vol.11 No.1 KCI Accredited Journals
Published
2010.2
Pages
165 - 186 (22page)

Usage

cover
📌
Topic
📖
Background
🔬
Method
🏆
Result
Withdrawing Life-Sustaining Treatment under the Constitutional Law
Ask AI
Recommendations
Search
Questions

Abstract· Keywords

Report Errors
The development of life-sustaining treatment such as inventing the respirator makes new legal controversies. In 2009, the Supreme Court of Korea ordered the defendant's doctors to withdraw the meaningless life-sustaining treatment for the so-called ‘death with dignity’ old woman aged 77.
In this case, there were two questions before the Court. First, under the Korean constitutional law, can the life-sustaining treatment be withdrawn? Second, if so, what is the criterion for the withdrawal? The majority opinion decided that in case where it is acknowledged that, in state of irreversible coma, the patient exercises the right to self-determination based on human dignity, value and the right to pursuit of happiness, the withdrawal can be allowed. And it also stressed that in case where, under a patient's usual sense of value or belief, etc., it can be acknowledged that since removing the life-sustaining treatment objectively corresponds to the patient's best interests, the patient would choose not to maintain the treatment, even if the patient were given an opportunity of exercising his or her right to self-determination, then his or her intention can be presumed.
It seems desirable that the Court called this case withdrawal life-sustaining treatment in stead of death with dignity case. However, when the majority opinion allowed the patient to be stopped the treatment, it should have found other consitutional grounds other than the right to self-determination, because the patient was unconscious and could not exercise the right by herself.
It seems that we are just on the first step of the controversies with regard to the forgoing the life-sustaining treatment. We have to make not only the requirements to define the state of irreversible coma, but also the detail institutional apparatus to find patient's intent. Furthermore, we should consider whether artificial nutrition and hydration should be included in the court order to withdraw the treatment.
Some may argue that the issue of termination of life-sustaining treatment be left to the political process, but the social consensus, above all, should be preceded the process.

Contents

Ⅰ. 머리말
Ⅱ. 사실개요 및 판결요지
Ⅲ. 판례의 헌법적 검토
Ⅳ. 맺음말
참고문헌
〈국문요약〉
〈Abstract〉

References (23)

Add References

Related precedents (3)

1 / 1
  • 서울고등법원 2009. 2. 10. 선고 2008나116869 판결

    View more
  • 서울서부지방법원 2008. 11. 28. 선고 2008가합6977 판결

    [1] 생명연장 치료가 회복가능성이 없는 환자에게 육체적 고통이 될뿐만 아니라 식물상태로 의식 없이 생명을 연장하여야 하는 정신적 고통의 무의미한 연장을 강요하는 결과를 가져오게 되어 오히려 인간의 존엄과 인격적 가치를 해할 수 있는 경우에는, 환자가 삶과 죽음의 경계에서 자연스러운 죽음을 맞이하는 것이 인간의 존엄과 가치에 더 부합하게 되

    View more
  • 대법원 2009. 5. 21. 선고 2009다17417 전원합의체 판결

    [1] 환자가 의사 또는 의료기관(이하 `의료인’이라 한다)에게 진료를 의뢰하고 의료인이 그 요청에 응하여 치료행위를 개시하는 경우에 의료인과 환자 사이에는 의료계약이 성립된다. 의료계약에 따라 의료인은 질병의 치료 등을 위하여 모든 의료지식과 의료기술을 동원하여 환자를 진찰하고 치료할 의무를 부담하며 이에 대하여 환자 측은 보수를 지급할

    View more

Recommendations

It is an article recommended by DBpia according to the article similarity. Check out the related articles!

Related Authors

Frequently Viewed Together

Recently viewed articles

Comments(0)

0

Write first comments.

UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2010-362-002215350