Court decisions on withdrawal of life sustaining treatment and related problems associated with legalization

Article information

J Korean Med Assoc. 2012;55(12):1178-1187
Publication date (electronic) : 2012 December 18
doi : https://doi.org/10.5124/jkma.2012.55.12.1178
Departments of Medical Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Corresponding author: Jang Han Kim, jhk@amc.seoul.kr
Received 2012 October 22; Accepted 2012 November 10.

Abstract

The development of life sustaining treatment technology including artificial ventilation has given us the moral problem, considering the human dignity and futility of medical treatment, until when these treatments could be given to terminally ill patients. In Korea, there were two supreme court decisions a significant impacts on the withdrawal of life sustaining treatment. After these decisions, Korean medical society has developed a guideline for advance directives and has also established a voluntary hospital ethics committee. The patient's right of self- determination right and the paternalistic approach of medicine should be balanced at an optimal level, because benefits of medical advances should be adjusted to take into account the burden of life prolongations. Decision making always has been difficult because related to ethical values, and there a broad spectrum of value-laden attitudes within Korean society. The legalization of end-of-life care should be from the respect of the professional autonomy of medical society. Under these considerations, we should supply alternative methods like hospice care, which can help to manage the withdrawal of life support appropriately, and also make an effort to relieve the economical burden of patients.

References

1. 2002Do995. Supreme Court Decision Decided Jun 24, 2004.
2. Kim KY. The medico-legal and ethical problems of withholding/withdrawing of futile life-sustaining mechanical respirator treatment. Tuberc Respir Dis 2005. 58213–229.
3. 2009Da17417. Supreme Court Full Panel Decision Decided May 21, 2009.
4. Park HW. The implications and significance of the case at Severance Hospital. J Korean Med Assoc 2009. 52848–855.
5. National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency. Social consensus on end-of-life decision in Korea 2009. Seoul: National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency;
6. Oh do Y, Kim JH, Lee SH, Kim DW, Im SA, Kim TY, Heo DS, Bang YJ, Kim NK. Artificial nutrition and hydration in terminal cancer patients: the real and the ideal. Support Care Cancer 2007. 15631–636.
7. Korean Medical Association. Korean Academy of Medical Sciences. Korean Hospital Association. Guideline to withdrawal of a life-sustaining therapy 2009. Seoul: Korean Medical Association;
8. Oh DY, Kim JE, Lee CH, Lim JS, Jung KH, Heo DS, Bang YJ, Kim NK. Discrepancies among patients, family members, and physicians in Korea in terms of values regarding the withhold-ing of treatment from patients with terminal malignancies. Cancer 2004. 1001961–1966.
9. Nam YH, Seo IS, Lim JH, Choi JH, Kim JE, Choi JH, Oh JM, Kwon KH, Yoon SJ, Yoon SM. Application of advance dir-ectives for patients with end stage renal disease. Korean J Nephrol 2008. 2785–93.
10. Heo DS. Patient autonomy and advance directives in Korea. J Korean Med Assoc 2009. 52865–870.
11. Park IK, Lee IH. Hospital ethics committee of Korea and other nations: legal provisions, structures and development. Korean J Med Law 2011. 197–34.
12. Catholic Medical Center. Charter of Ethics of Catholic Medical Center 2012. Seoul: Catholic Medical Center;
13. Yun YH. Hospice-palliative care and social strategies for improvement of the quality of end-of–life. J Korean Med Assoc 2009. 52880–885.
14. Kim JS. The final say about right to oneself-life and protective responsibility of nation: life about patient of revival impossi-bility for the prolongation of life. Law Rev 2010. 381–20.

Article information Continued