earticle

영어

The problem surrounding death with dignity has recently been raising important legal and social issues. Nationally, the discussion about a doctor's requirement of ceasing treatment has been initiated with the 1998 'Boramae hospital' case as the basis. Many processes of debate has been continued, but a national agreement has not yet been achieved. There has been active debates about death with dignity based on the ruling of the Supreme Court relating to the prolongation of life and cease of treatment at Severance Hospital, and several legislative bills relating to this issue has been motioned. In the case of foreign countries, they are already showing a drift towards legal acceptance of death with dignity or passive euthanasia, respecting the patient's right of decision to decrease their pain, and in the Netherlands, euthanasia has nationally been legalized.
The purpose of this study has been to grasp the key legal issues by examining the details of the recent ruling of the Supreme Court and its relating legislative debates. Furthermore, the main details of legislations relating to death with dignity in foreign countries has been examined to study the direction of legislations that may be applied in our country.
According to the results of the study, the standard of legislations relating to death with dignity opens the permitting excuses of clear and meticulous withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment, and simultaneously function as a systematic device to maximize prevention of withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment. In detail, the medical standard of acceptable euthanasia is judged considering the condition of the patient, restricting to patients who possess no hope of recovery, and this judgment is to be made of the majority of medical professionals and neutral bodies, proceeding through processes of committees and such to control the process of withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment.
On the other hand, to withdrawal of treatment for the prolongation of life, the decision of the patient's doctor must be voluntary and must have proceeded through extensive deliberations. However, preparing for the case when the patient is in a condition difficult to exercise his right of decision, the patient's will or prior wishes may be systematically considered.
Meanwhile, the target is principally restricted to adults, and to prevent careless decision of the patient, a deliberation period of about 15 days is given to check and examine the condition of the patient, discuss with the family, and the relating committee's intervention may be considered.