J Korean Med Assoc.  2012 Dec;55(12):1178-1187. 10.5124/jkma.2012.55.12.1178.

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

• Kim JH

• KMID: 2015662
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.5124/jkma.2012.55.12.1178

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.

Keyword

Advance directives; Personal autonomy; Hospices; Clinical ethics committee; Withholding treatment

MeSH Terms

Advance Directives
Decision Making
Ethics Committees
Ethics Committees, Clinical
Hospice Care
Hospices
Hospitals, Voluntary
Humans
Jurisprudence
Korea
Medical Futility
Patient Rights
Personal Autonomy
Personhood
Professional Autonomy
Societies, Medical
Supreme Court Decisions
Terminally Ill
Ventilation
Withholding Treatment

Reference

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. 58:213–229.

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. 52:848–855.

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. 15:631–636.

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. 100:1961–1966.

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. 27:85–93.

10. Heo DS. Patient autonomy and advance directives in Korea. J Korean Med Assoc. 2009. 52:865–870.

11. Park IK, Lee IH. Hospital ethics committee of Korea and other nations: legal provisions, structures and development. Korean J Med Law. 2011. 19:7–34.

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. 52:880–885.

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. 38:1–20.