최근 연명치료중단과 관련하여 대법원 판결이 선고되면서, 인간답게 죽을 권리에 대한 관심이 증가하고 있다. 사망의 단계에 접어든 환자에 대하여 단순이 현상태만을 유지시키는 연명치료를 중단하여 자연스러운 사망으로 유도하는 일련의 과정에 대하여, 여러 법률적 쟁점이 도출되고 있다. 이번 판결은 비록 무의미한 연명치료장치제거를 청구한 민사소송이지만, 다수의 형법적 쟁점이 포함된 것이다. 이에 연명치료중단의 의의와 관련하여 기존 안락사, 존엄사와의 관계가 문제되며, 연명치료중단의 형사처벌 가능성과 관련하여 처벌가능성 및 정당화 근거 등이 문제된다. 또한 연명치료중단 과정에서 환자의 동의의 법적 성질을 피해자 승낙으로 보는 경우 피해자 승낙의 유효요건 및 추정적 승낙의 형법적 처리 등이 문제된다. 의료적으로 연명치료를 중단할지 여부를 결정하는 것은 사전적인 판단이지만, 사망의 결과가 나타나고 관련자의 이해가 충돌하여 법적 분쟁으로 확대된 후 사후적 판단은 동일한 기준에 의할 수 없다고 할 것이다. 특히, 민사적 법률관계를 떠나 관계자의 형사책임을 논함에 있어 그 기준은 엄격할 수밖에 없다. 환자 본인인 피해자의 승낙이 아니라 그러한 승낙의 추정을 인정하여 사망이라는 결과에 적법성을 부여하는 추정적 승낙의 인정과정에서 관련자에게 ‘양심에 따른 심사’라는 주관적 정당화요소를 요구하는 것이 필수불가결하다. 형법이론 상 피해자의 승낙에 대하여 보충적 지위에 있는 추정적 승낙이지만, 연명치료중단의 경우에는 오히려 주가 되므로 이에 대한 연구가 계속되어야 할 것이다.

Recent Supreme Court ruling on death with dignity has increased the interest in the right to die like a human being. Various legal issues have been raised within the process of guiding a person who has entered into the steps of death to a natural death by cease of medical treatment which has been prolonging such person. Although the current ruling was a civil case petitioning the removal of meaningless life-prolonging medical device, it includes number of criminal law issues Thereupon, there are several issues including the definition of cease of life-prolong treatmentin relation to the existing voluntary or involuntary euthanasia, the possibility of criminal prosecution andthe ground of justification. Furthermore, if a patient’s consent to the cease of life-prolong treatment is viewed as consent of a victim then there are issues of what will constitute as the effective requisites for such consent of a victim and the handling of presumptive consent in the viewpoint of criminal law. Although the medical decision to cease the life-prolong treatment is a judgment before-the-fact, the judgment after-the-fact which will be required after the resulting death and related legal disputes between the related parties has been raised, cannot be viewed with equal standard. Especially, outside of the civil legal relationship, the standard must be stricter in the context of criminal liability of the related party. It is inevitable to require a subjective justification element such as ‘judgment with conscience’ to a related party when recognizing presumptive consent, which places legality to a death by acknowledging a presumptive consent rather than victim’s consent by the patient. Despite of the presumptive consent having the supplementary status to the consent of a victim in criminal theory, as presumptive consent will be the main theory in the cases of cease of life-prolong treatments, studies need to be continued in this context.

Recent Supreme Court ruling on death with dignity has increased the interest in the right to die like a human being. Various legal issues have been raised within the process of guiding a person who has entered into the steps of death to a natural death by cease of medical treatment which has been prolonging such person. Although the current ruling was a civil case petitioning the removal of meaningless life-prolonging medical device, it includes number of criminal law issues Thereupon, there are several issues including the definition of cease of life-prolong treatmentin relation to the existing voluntary or involuntary euthanasia, the possibility of criminal prosecution andthe ground of justification. Furthermore, if a patient’s consent to the cease of life-prolong treatment is viewed as consent of a victim then there are issues of what will constitute as the effective requisites for such consent of a victim and the handling of presumptive consent in the viewpoint of criminal law. Although the medical decision to cease the life-prolong treatment is a judgment before-the-fact, the judgment after-the-fact which will be required after the resulting death and related legal disputes between the related parties has been raised, cannot be viewed with equal standard. Especially, outside of the civil legal relationship, the standard must be stricter in the context of criminal liability of the related party. It is inevitable to require a subjective justification element such as ‘judgment with conscience’ to a related party when recognizing presumptive consent, which places legality to a death by acknowledging a presumptive consent rather than victim’s consent by the patient. Despite of the presumptive consent having the supplementary status to the consent of a victim in criminal theory, as presumptive consent will be the main theory in the cases of cease of life-prolong treatments, studies need to be continued in this context.

Death with Dignity, Voluntary Euthanasia, Involuntary Euthanasia, Consent of a Victim, Presumptive Consent