• 검색어에 아래의 연산자를 사용하시면 더 정확한 검색결과를 얻을 수 있습니다.
  • 검색연산자
검색연산자 기능 검색시 예
() 우선순위가 가장 높은 연산자 예1) (나노 (기계 | machine))
공백 두 개의 검색어(식)을 모두 포함하고 있는 문서 검색 예1) (나노 기계)
예2) 나노 장영실
| 두 개의 검색어(식) 중 하나 이상 포함하고 있는 문서 검색 예1) (줄기세포 | 면역)
예2) 줄기세포 | 장영실
! NOT 이후에 있는 검색어가 포함된 문서는 제외 예1) (황금 !백금)
예2) !image
* 검색어의 *란에 0개 이상의 임의의 문자가 포함된 문서 검색 예) semi*
"" 따옴표 내의 구문과 완전히 일치하는 문서만 검색 예) "Transform and Quantization"
쳇봇 이모티콘
ScienceON 챗봇입니다.
궁금한 것은 저에게 물어봐주세요.

논문 상세정보

연명치료중단의 허용성과 법제화에 대한 고찰

Legalization and Regulation of Withdrawing Life-Sustaining Treatment

형사정책 v.26 no.1 , 2014년, pp.137 - 159   http://dx.doi.org/10.36999/kjc.2014.26.1.137

The criminal law gives rise to a duty to provide life-sustaining treatment in the terminal phase of an illness, even if the patient no longer wishes to receive such medical treatment. This duty is identified as the significant source of criminal responsibility for those involved in decisions to withdraw life-sustaining treatment, so the Article 252 of the Korean Penal Code prescribes ‘murder upon request or with consent’. This article discusses whether this duty do not require the provision of treatment that is deemed to be futile. In the context of the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment debates, this article discusses arguments about the distinction between act and omission, on the one hand, and the relationship of those concepts to the distinction between causing death and letting die, on the other. Focused on the continuity of medical care process, it might be argued that the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment that was initiated is not the initiation of a new process, but the resumption of a process that was suspended when the treatment was initially implemented. In so arguing, this article points out that there is a conceptual distinction between the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment and active euthanasia. Indeed, traditional medical ethics recognizes that the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment simply allows the patient to die, rather than causing the patient's death. Independent from the question of causation, the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment is justified, as long as a duty to treat does not exist. In the absence of any duty to provide life-sustaining treatment, the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment does not cause death. This article examines where, in any event, should the line be drawn between the cases where a duty is held to exist and those where it is held not to.

참고문헌 (0)

  1. 이 논문의 참고문헌 없음

이 논문을 인용한 문헌 (0)

  1. 이 논문을 인용한 문헌 없음


원문 PDF 다운로드

  • KCI :

원문 URL 링크

  • 원문 URL 링크 정보가 존재하지 않습니다.
상세조회 0건 원문조회 0건

DOI 인용 스타일