인공호흡기제거 청구사건 판결의 형사법적 시사점

Abstract

On May 21st, 2009, theKorea’s Supreme Court upheld a landmark ruling: allowing a family to remove life-sustaining equipment from a comatose patient that had no chance of recovery. Chief Justice Lee Yong-hoon said during the ruling, “Whether or not to stop life-sustaining treatment should be carefully decided upon. Given the overall evidence and condition of health, the patient would die following the removal of life support, which means she is in all intents and purposes already dead. Before falling into her coma, she said that she did not want to be kept alive with machines if there was no chance of recovery. Given this, we believe that she would also want the treatment to be stopped. In this condition, extending her life is meaningless and against her will of dying with dignity.” Following the ruling, the involved hospital discussed the issue with her family, doctors and other experts to determine how to proceed. A few days later the families of two other comatose patients brought suit against other hospitals for the right to remove the patients from life-sustaining equipment. The Supreme Court’s ruling is expected to provide a fresh momentum for the move to make legislation to revise the Medical Law. A majority of the public supports death with dignity, that is, their right to decide whether or not the withdrawal and withholding of life-sustaining treatment, upon a terminally ill patient's request, should be respected. Most Koreans are increasingly thinking about and planning for their own medical treatment in the event of an incurable or irreversible medical condition. Also, the public is willing to allow end-of-life decisions, regarding life- sustaining treatment, by family members. In Korean hospitals, whenever there was a terminal condition, the family needs to be entitled to be informed about the course of treatment and treatment options, which should include life-sustaining devices. Against this backdrop, it is wise to move toward respecting patients' personal choice and to take policy measures as soon as possible. I think that the present might be the right moment to make legislation about euthanasia for the sake of human dignity. This controversy has been taboo for too long. Legislation should be worked out through a broad collection of public opinion and references to successful foreign regulations and practices.