Legal and Ethical Issues Regarding End-of-Life Care in Korea

Kyungsuk Choi
{"title":"Legal and Ethical Issues Regarding End-of-Life Care in Korea","authors":"Kyungsuk Choi","doi":"10.21588/DNS.2016.45.1.006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Korea legislated withdrawing or withholding life-sustaining treatment after the Korean Supreme Court Decision on Grandma Kim’s Case. However, the Proposal for Legislation by the Korean National Bioethics Committee and the Supreme Court decision have some limitations. Both limits the patient’s ability to decide to withdraw or withhold life-sustaining treatment to cases involving a dying patient who is about to die. The Hospice and Life-sustaining Treatment Act also reflected this limitation. Only POLST signed by competent patients themselves is fully respected as a patient’s wishes. The Supreme Court decision reveals theoretical confusion between the principle of respecting autonomy and that of a patient’s best interest. Even though the Proposal and the Act outline certain procedures for surrogate decision-making, they may be problematic in that they place a heavy weight on family members’ decision making. This limitation should be overcome with ethical, legal, and sociological studies. Despites this limitation, any legislation based on the Proposal was needed in Korea. Building a medical system with better palliative care or hospice care should be emphasized to prevent the abuse of withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment. The values of familism should be balanced with those of autonomy.","PeriodicalId":84572,"journal":{"name":"Development and society (Soul Taehakkyo. Institute for Social Devdelopment and Policy Research)","volume":"13 1","pages":"151-164"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Development and society (Soul Taehakkyo. Institute for Social Devdelopment and Policy Research)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21588/DNS.2016.45.1.006","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

Abstract

Korea legislated withdrawing or withholding life-sustaining treatment after the Korean Supreme Court Decision on Grandma Kim’s Case. However, the Proposal for Legislation by the Korean National Bioethics Committee and the Supreme Court decision have some limitations. Both limits the patient’s ability to decide to withdraw or withhold life-sustaining treatment to cases involving a dying patient who is about to die. The Hospice and Life-sustaining Treatment Act also reflected this limitation. Only POLST signed by competent patients themselves is fully respected as a patient’s wishes. The Supreme Court decision reveals theoretical confusion between the principle of respecting autonomy and that of a patient’s best interest. Even though the Proposal and the Act outline certain procedures for surrogate decision-making, they may be problematic in that they place a heavy weight on family members’ decision making. This limitation should be overcome with ethical, legal, and sociological studies. Despites this limitation, any legislation based on the Proposal was needed in Korea. Building a medical system with better palliative care or hospice care should be emphasized to prevent the abuse of withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment. The values of familism should be balanced with those of autonomy.
韩国临终关怀的法律和伦理问题
韩国在大法院对金奶奶的案件做出判决后,制定了撤回或中止生命维持治疗的法律。但是,国家生命伦理委员会的立法提案和大法院的判决存在一定的局限性。这两种方法都限制了患者在涉及即将死亡的垂死患者的情况下决定撤销或停止维持生命治疗的能力。《临终关怀和维持生命治疗法》也反映了这一限制。只有有能力的患者自己签署的POLST才会被充分尊重为患者的意愿。最高法院的裁决揭示了尊重自主原则和病人最大利益原则之间的理论混淆。尽管《提案》和《法案》概述了替代决策的某些程序,但它们可能存在问题,因为它们非常重视家庭成员的决策。这一限制应该通过伦理、法律和社会学的研究来克服。尽管有这样的限制,但在韩国,以该提案为基础的立法是必要的。应重视建立一个更好的姑息治疗或临终关怀的医疗体系,以防止滥用生命维持治疗的退出。家庭主义的价值应与自治的价值相平衡。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信