존엄하게 죽을 권리에 관한 연구

한상수(Han Sang-Su) 한국비교공법학회 2010 공법학연구 Vol.11 No.3

현행법에서는 죽음에 대한 개인의 법적 지위를 포괄적으로 규율하는 규정이 존재하지 않아 존엄사 내지 연명치료중단과 관련하여 이론적, 실무적으로 많은 혼란이 야기되고 있다. 이러한 혼란을 해결하기 위해서는 죽음에 대한 개인의 법적 지위를 포괄적으로 규율할 필요가 있다. 지금까지 안락사 내지 존엄사와 관련한 논의의 성과를 바탕으로 본 논문은 존엄하게 죽을 권리가 헌법적 권리로 인정되어야 한다는 것을 논증한다. 존엄하게 죽을 권리는 죽을 권리, 인간의 존엄성, 그리고 자기결정권을 근거로 인정되는 헌법적 권리이다. 존엄하게 죽을 권리는 개인이 자신의 죽음의 시기와 방법을 결정할 수 있는 권리, 무의미한 연명치료를 거부할 수 있는 권리, 그리고 죽음에 대한 타인의 조력을 요구할 수 있는 권리를 포함한다. 죽음에 대한 조력요구권은 죽음의 과정에 타인의 행위를 적극적으로 개입시키게 되기 때문에 남용될 가능성이 있다. 따라서 조력요구권은 엄격한 요건 하에서 제한적으로 인정되어야 할 것이다. 존엄하게 죽을 권리도 다른 권리와 마찬가지로 해악의 원리와 권리남용금지의 원칙에 의해 제한을 받게 된다. 최근의 조사 결과에 의하면, 우리 국민의 과반수 이상이 연명치료거부나 약물투여에 대한 법률의 제정에 찬성하는 입장을 보이고 있다. 또 우리 헌법재판소도 국회가 충분한 의결수렴과정을 거쳐 연명치료와 관련한 법률제정을 촉구하고 있다. 이러한 입법을 뒷받침하기 위해 존엄하게 죽을 권리에 대한 체계적이고 학제적인 연구가 진행되어야 할 것이다. This article aims to suggest that the right to die with dignity should be recognized as a constitutional right. The development of medical science and technology has made it possible to sustain the life of the terminally ill by medical treatment. However this has caused ethical and legal debates concerning euthanasia or death with dignity. These debates have failed to reach a consensus on the matter of euthanasia due to its conceptional ambiguity and scholars' negative approach to the problem. The appropriate direction of dealing with the problem of euthanasia is to recognize the right to die with dignity as a constitutional right. The legal foundations of the right to die with dignity are as follows: 1) all human beings have the dignity and value as a person, 2) every human beings has the right to personal autonomy, 3) the right to die is one of the unenumerated constitutional rights. The right to die with dignity means that all human beings have the right to decide the time and method of dying on the basis of autonomy. The right to die with dignity also includes not only the right to refuse life-sustaining medical treatment but also under some strict conditions the right to require active aid in dying. Like other rights the right to die with dignity can be restricted by harm principle and right abuse prohibition principle.

죽을 권리와 죽일 권능 -용어의 정리를 제안하며-

황도수 ( Dos Su Hwang ) 세계헌법학회 한국학회 2013 세계헌법연구(世界憲法硏究) Vol.19 No.2

Unlike past, death itself became one of the choices of humankind these days. The word ``Euthanasia``, which was defined in the past. does not give appropriate meaning as solving today`s death problems. Lately, The term ``Death with dignity`` was added to euthanasia to approach to problems, but it seems that it could not be explained fully. This passage was started by acknowledging that death is one of the humans right and trying to solve the problems. Change of attitude against death problems are already sited in the Constitutional Law. At Article 10 Constitutional Law, it was cited as “each and every of individuals has their own dignity and value as human”; it supposes that each and every individuals have their own determinations by different views and also they share responsibilities as one of the society. According to the Constitutional Law, death problems should also be one of the individuals` right over nation`s right. By Being able to choose their own destiny and approach the death problems, individuals can finally live according to ideology of Constitutional Law. Based on the fact that right to die are guaranteed as fundamental right by Constitutional Law, death problems could be divided in to two big categories: right to die and power to kill. Right to die is matter of ending life themselves, and power to kill is the matter of deciding whether to kill other individuals or not. The former individuals are exercising their own right of dying and the later individuals are execute the power of nation. The former individuals are deciding about their own lives, while the later individuals are deciding other individuals` lives. Right to die is the problem of committing suicide, but power to kill is the problem of murdering other individuals. At the point of view of law, death problems should be separated and treated differently as right to die and power to kill. According to the conclusion of this passage, death with dignity is part of the right to die; euthanasia should be used as power to kill.

헌법상 연명치료중단에 관한 자기결정권 입론의 비판적 검토

노동일(Noh Dong-Ill) 한국헌법학회 2010 憲法學硏究 Vol.16 No.4

The Constitutional Court of Korea (hereinafter the Court) rendered a historical and landmark decision in 2008HunMa385 case decided on November 26, 2009. In that case, the Court recognized the right of self-determination to refuse life-sustaining treatment as one of the constitutional fundamental rights of a patient based on Article 10 of the Korean Constitution which guarantees all citizens the human dignity and worth and the right to pursue happiness. Prior to the decision of the Court, the Supreme Court of Korea, in Supreme Court en banc Decision 2009Da17417 decided May 21, 2009, also concluded that a patient who reaches the irrevocable death stage is allowed to ask discontinuance of life-sustaining treatment exercising the constitutional fundamental right of self-determination. Therefore, it is now settled in the Korean constitutional law that there is a 'constitutional fundamental right of self-determination to refuse life-sustaining treatment (hereinafter the right)' even though discontinuance of the treatment may result in the death of the patient. However, it is the author's view that the Constitutional Court has erred, advertently or inadvertently, in the process of conceptualizing the right as a constitutional fundamental right in two folds. The Court first characterized that the patient who reaches the irrevocable death stage should be recognized to have the right and his/her intention to exercise the right can be inferred from the past records such as expression of the intention to family members, his/her religion, life style, side effect of the treatment, etc. However, as long as the right is regarded as a constitutional fundamental right, the right should be that of all citizens like any other fundamental rights, not just that of a patient who reaches the irrevocable death stage. Next, the Court, while explaining how to exercise the right, characterized the right as a right to shorten the patient's life and therefore many scholars deem the decision to recognize the right to die, the death with dignity, and/or the involuntary (passive) euthanasia. However, the author argues that the decision specifically states the right as a right to refuse(discontinue) treatment and it should not be regarded as a right to die, right of death with dignity and/or any forms of euthanasia. If the Court inadvertently used the word 'right to shorten the patient's life', they should make it clear that the right has nothing to do with the right to die, etc. because the constitutional right to life does not include the right to give up his/her life, i.e., the right to die. The author fully sympathizes with the reasons behind the death with dignity argument, there should be no right of death with dignity since there is no constitutional right to die. Instead, it is enough to say that all citizens have the right to pursue the human dignity and worth, as the Court itself states in the decision.

생을 마감할 권리에 관한 헌법적 고찰

김하열(Kim Ha-yurl) 한국법학원 2016 저스티스 Vol.- No.152

살아가면서 겪는 고통과 어려움을 어떻게 평가하고 대처할지는 삶에 있어 보편적이고 본질적인 문제이다. 그런데 사람은 누구나 늙어가고, 병들고, 죽어 간다. 늙어가고 죽어가면서 겪는 고통을 어떻게 처리할지 또한 삶의 보편적인 문제이다. 오늘날 의학의 발달로 늙어가고 죽어가는 과정은 더 길고 복잡해졌다. 죽음은 더 이상 단말마의 순간의 사건으로 완료되지 않는다. 가족, 특히 의료체계의 도움을 받으며 오랜 기간 죽음 과정이 지속된다. 이렇게 지속되는 죽음 과정을 삶의 과정과 분리하는 것은 옳지 않다. 이 문제는 삶의 문제이다. 삶의 주인공은 삶의 주체인 개인들이다. 어떻게 살아갈지를 스스로 선택하는 데에 인간의 자유와 존엄이 있듯이, 어떻게 삶을 마감할지를 선택하는 것도 인간의 자유와 존엄의 본질이다. 이 글에서는 의사의 조력을 받아 생을 마감할 자유를 중심으로, 삶과 죽음에 관한 개인의 선택권이 인간의 존엄에서 도출되는 헌법적 권리로서 존중받아야 함을 주장하였다. 먼저, 생의 마감에 관한 헌법적 논의는 비종교적, 세속적 토대에서 전개되어야 한다는 방법론적 좌표를 설정하였다 (Ⅱ). 그리고 본격적 논의에 앞서 가치중립적 용어로서 의사조력사(physician-assisted death)를 선택한 다음, 의사조력사의 개념을 분석하였다(Ⅲ). 의사의 조력으로 생을 마감할 권리의 주체의 문제는 보다 깊은 의학적, 법적 연구를 필요로 하므로 이 글에서는 일응 ‘호전의 전망 없이 견디기 힘든 고통에 처해 있는 환자’로 전제하는 것에 그쳤다. 다음으로, 의사의 조력을 받아 생을 마감할 권리의 헌법적 근거를 밝혔다(Ⅳ). 주된 헌법적 근거는 헌법 제10조에서 보장하는 인간의 존엄 및 인격권이고, 헌법 제10조와 제37조 제1항으로부터 도출되는 신체불훼손권도 보완적 논거가 된다. 생명의 절대성, 완화의료나 호스피스의 활용 가능성, 오․남용의 위험이나 ‘미끄러운 경사’론과 같은 반대논거들은 의사조력사의 헌법적 권리성을 부인하기에 충분치 않다. 이어서, 이 헌법적 권리를 제한할 수 있는 정당한 공익목적으로서, 환자의 의사결정상의 오류를 차단하는 것, 사회적 취약자에게 가해지는 압박이나 강요를 차단하는 것, 미성년자의 이익을 보호하는 것, 의료진의 기본권을 보호하는 것을 들고, 이를 위한 적정한 제한조치들을 살펴 보았다(Ⅵ). 양자 간의 조화적 균형을 꾀하는 방법은 결국, 원칙적으로 환자의 자유를 보장하면서도 오․남용 등의 위험요소들을 예외적으로 규제할 수 있는, 세심하게 설계되고 관리되는 안전시스템을 마련하는 데에 있다. 마지막으로 의사조력사의 권리를 보장하면서도 그 부작용을 방지하는 일은 민주주의 정치과정을 통해 토론과 숙의를 거쳐 입법자가 1차적으로 해결해야 할 과제임을 강조하면서, 현행 법질서에 대한 헌법적 평가를 해보았다 (Ⅶ). 우리 현행법상으로는 의사조력사에 관한 별도의 입법이 없고, 환자의 요청에 따라 의사조력사를 시행한 의사를 촉탁․승낙살인죄나 자살방조죄로 처벌하는 형법규정이 있을 뿐인데, 이 형법규정은 생을 자율적으로 마감할 권리가 지닌 헌법적 의미에 대한 아무런 고려 없이 일률적으로 처벌만 할 뿐이어서 이 권리를 비례성원칙에 위반하여 침해하고 있고, 따라서 위헌이다. How to cope with the everyday sufferings and hardships is a universal and essential problem for ordinary people. We all get older, ill and go through the dying. Thus how to confront the sufferings and agonies coming from aging and dying is also a universal problem for the living. The process of aging and dying nowadays has become longer and more complicated due to the medical achievements. It lasts long and patients owe much to the aids from family and/or medical institutions. To separate the process of dying-which occurs in the middle of life-from that of living is not desirable. Dying is a crucial part of living. For the human liberty and dignity, the choice as to the end of one"s life is no less important than the choice as to the way how to live on. This article asserts that individual"s free decision as to the end-of-life should be respected as a fundamental right through the constitutional guarantee of human dignity and focuses on the physician assisted death[PAD]. Firstly, a need for non-religious, secular basis for the constitutional argumentations on PAD has been acknowledged. For the argumentations, a value-neutral term, PAD, has been selected rather than others like ‘euthanasia’, "death with dignity" or "right to die". And the conceptual elements of PAD have been analysed. As for the scope of patients who could ask for PAD, "those patients whose suffering is unbearable and for whom no prospect of improvement is expected" has been suggested. Secondly, constitutional grounds for the right to PAD have been set up. Principal ground is human dignity guaranteed in the Art.10 of Constitution of Korea, and right to security of personal body(corporeality) deducible from the Art.10 and Art.37(1) is secondary ground. Arguments such as sanctity of life, availability of palliative sedation or hospice, risk of abuse and so called "slippery slope" can not be obstacles for the acknowledgment of the right to PAD. Thirdly, to prevent patient’s error in decision making, to cut off coercion or inducement against the vulnerables, to protect the interests of the minors, and to protect the rights of the physicians are the legitimate interests to set limits to the right to PAD. To strike balance between the interests mentioned above and the right to PAD, carefully contrived and effectively manageable safety regimes are mandatory. Lastly, complex regulatory regimes are better created by Parliament than by the courts. Still there is no such legislation in Korea except penal provisions which ban aiding suicide. These provisions do not take the dignity of patients and their right to PAD into consideration. They unproportionately abridge the fundamental rights of the patients, thus unconstitutional.

의사조력사의 정당화 논거로서 심신(心身)온전성의 권리

최다혜 세계헌법학회한국학회 2022 세계헌법연구(世界憲法硏究) Vol.28 No.1

The right to integrity of the person is a fundamental right to protect the state of mental and physical inviolability enable to self-determination, and also is related to life and human dignity. Thus, it can be interpreted from Article 10 human dignity and Article 12 freedom of the body of Constitution. Furthermore, the extent not to be subsumed from Articles 10 and 12 may be regarded as the independent right derived from Article 37 (1) on the ideological basis of Articles 10 and 12. In relation to the right not to be physically damaged in recent years, the Charter of the Fundamental Rights of the European Union explicitly defines the right of integrity in Article 3, paragraph 1 of Chapter 1, stating that “Everyone has the right to respect for his or her physical and mental integrity.” The rights and principles set out in Article 3 require the EU national legislation and other national laws to form part of the law on the basis of these principles. In Korea, ‘Right to the physical and mental integrity of the person’ has appeared in the 2017 Constitutional Amendment as a new establishment of the right not to be damaged. As an expanded concept, the right to integrity of the person can justify a physician assisted dying from focusing on the perspective of the body in pain. Human beings should be able to freely express their personality, and to do this they should be able to determine for themselves all the treatments that can be done to their bodies according to their values and meaning of personal life. The law, which does not allow physician assisted dying, makes a demand person to endure unbearable extreme physical and mental suffering. The law interrupts exclusive use and control of the body and indirectly inflicts physical and mental infringement on the individual. It damages the integration of the mental and physical sate of the body including private life experiences and subjective attributes of one’s life. That is violates the freedom which the right to the integrity of the person to protect based on human dignity and values. 심신(心身)온전성의 권리(또는 심신을 훼손당하지 아니할 권리)는 자주적 결정을 하기 위해 전제되어야 하는 심신 불가침의 상태를 보호하는 기본권으로서 생명과 직결되며 인간의 존엄과 가치를 보장하기 위한 권리로 헌법 제10조 인간의 존엄과 가치 및 제12조 신체의 자유로부터 도출되는 권리라고 할 수 있다. 더 나아가 제10조와 제12조로부터 포섭되지 않는 범위에 대해서는 제10조와 제12조를 이념적 기초로 하여 제37조 제1항으로부터 도출되는 독자성을 갖는 권리로 볼 여지도 있다. 심신 온전성의 권리와 관련하여 유럽연합 기본권 헌장은 제1장 제3조 제1항에서 ‘모든 사람은 신체적・정신적 온전성의 권리를 갖는다’라고 하여 심신 온전성의 권리를 명시적으로 규정하고 있다. 제3조에 규정된 권리와 원칙은 EU의 국내 법령 및 기타 국내법이 이를 원칙을 기반으로 법률 일부를 구성하도록 요구하고 있다. 우리나라에서는 지난 2017년 헌법개정 안에서 신체를 훼손당하지 않을 권리의 신설로서 ‘신체와 정신의 온전성에 관한 권리’ 조항이 등장한 바 있다. 심신의 온전성을 훼손당하지 않는다는 개념은 신체와 정신의 통합성이 유지되는 상태로서 이를 위해서는 개인이 스스로 자신의 신체를 통제 및 지배할 수 있는 상태를 전제하는 개념이다. 신체에 관한 자기결정권은 신체와 관련된 ‘결정’에 관한 능력을 지키는 것인 반면 심신 온전성의 권리는 구체적 사안에서 자기결정권과 구분될 수밖에 없다. 신체를 훼손당하지 않을 권리를 신체의 독점적인 사용과 통제를 할 수 있고, 심신 통합성을 유지하며, 육체와 정신의 고통으로 부터의 자유를 포함하는 ‘심신 온전성의 권리’로 재구성한다면 의사조력사의 정당화 논거로서 새롭게 조명될 수 있다. 삶의 마지막 단계에서 고통으로부터 벗어나고 스스로 신체를 지배하고 싶은 정신적인 상태와 고통 속에 방치되고 있는 신체에 대해 국가가 극심한 육체적・정신적 고통을 견뎌내도록 하고 있다면, 공권력이 간접적으로 육체와 정신적인 침해를 가하는 것으로서 이는 심신의 통합성이 유지되지 않는 상태이자 신체의 자기 지배가 침해당함으로써 심신 온전성이 훼손당하는 결론에 이를 수 있을 것이다. 이러한 의미를 반영한다면 심신 온전성의 권리의 법적 성격과 권리의 범위에 헌법상 의사조력사를 인정할 가능성을 가지게 될 것이다. 즉, 의사조력사의 헌법적 근거로서 심신 온전성의 권리는 보완적 논거에서 나아가 더 예외적이고 극한상황에서 자주적 결정의 전제가 되는 권리이자 신체에 관한 자기결정권을 더욱 공고히 실현할 수 있도록 하는 권리인 것이다.

German Basic Rights Refined by the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights - The Development of Privacy and Self- Determination in German Jurisprudence

Judith Janna Maertens 한국법제연구원 2020 KLRI journal of law and legislation Vol.10 No.1

The relationship between the European Constitutional Courts and the European Court of Human Rights in the multilevel system of human rights protection has been discussed intensively. In fact, the ECtHR has a strong influence on the German Constitutional Court and vice versa the ECtHR has been strongly paid attention to the German jurisprudence. Gradually, a steady cooperation between the courts has been developed. The article will explain how German Basic Rights were redefined by the case law of the ECtHR. The development of the right of privacy and the right of self-determination under Article 8 ECHR and the corresponding general right of personality in German law will illustrate the impact of the ECtHR’s jurisprudence in German law. In this respect, the article will discuss the cases Von Hannover v. Germany in order to show privacy protection against the media. Then, the case Koch v. Germany will clarify the scope of self-determination regarding the right to die in dignity. Finally, the article will argue that the ECtHR’s case law and the domestic jurisprudence are interwoven in a complex system of human rights protection and that the cooperation of the courts is substantial for an effective protection system of human rights in Europe.

미국헌법상 안락사와 존엄사에 관한 연구

김명식(MyeongSik Kim) 한국헌법학회 2010 憲法學硏究 Vol.16 No.1

On May 21, 2009, the Supreme Court of Korea ordered to eliminate device for meaningless life-suspending treatment from a 78-year-old female patient, accepting her children's claim that she had always opposed keeping people alive on life-extending machines and her self-determination right, protected by right to human dignity and right pursuing happiness under Article 10 of the Constitution of Republic of Korea, should be guaranteed as a fundamental right. It is very interesting that although that decision has never used the terminology of ‘Death with Dignity’, many domestic media called it as the first Death with Dignity decision in Korea. But the concept of ‘Death with Dignity’ in Korea is mingled with the similar concepts of 'Withdrawal of Life-sustaining Treatment' or 'Assisted Suicide', etc., on an advocate's own point of view. It is also difficult matter to classify the concepts and to make legislation handling 'Death with Dignity', because the meaning of 'Death with Dignity' has been changing and it does not exactly square with the meaning from the general classifications on euthanasia. On the basis of the critical mind on these problems, this Article reviews the possibility of acknowledging the self-determining right to 'Death with Dignity' of terminally ill patient as a basic right and its constitutional basis, for example, under the Ninth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment in U.S. Constitution. And it also examines the leading cases on passive euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide, such as In re Quinlan(355 A.2d 647 (N.J. 1976)), Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health(497 U.S. 261 (1990)), Washington v. Glucksberg(117 S. Ct. 2258 (1997)), and Vacco v. Quill(117 S. Ct. 2293 (1997)). Futhermore, it overviews a diversity of opinions on whether 'Death with Dignity' should be protected as a constitutional fundamental right in U.S.

적극적 안락사 및 의사조력자살 허용 입법의 필요성 - 실존적 사실 및 통계적 근거를 중심으로 -

이문호 대한변호사협회 2019 人權과 正義 : 大韓辯護士協會誌 Vol.- No.482

South Korea acknowledges a narrow range of euthanasia under “Act on hospice, palliative care, and decisions on life-sustaining treatment for patients at the end of life”, but it has yet to fall short of the actions taken by major advanced countries regarding euthanasia, and therefore the “human dignity, values and the right to pursue happiness” guaranteed by Article 10 of the Constitution has not been materially realized in the realm of self-determination and well-dying rights to death. Advanced OECD countries are on the fast track to allow physician-assisted suicide and active euthanasia in terms of real human rights protection in response to social demands, and the high number of surveys in favor of active euthanasia and social pathological situations prevalent around the world, including Korea, suggest that our society is strongly requesting active euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. We hope that the National Human Rights Commission and other human rights-related state agencies and the National Assembly will work together to draw up a professional survey on whether to allow these euthanasia, draw up social consensus, follow-up legislative measures, and establish human and material infrastructure for the establishment of ‘euthanasia and assisted death review board’. Based on sufficient reference to advanced legislation, legislative action recognizing active euthanasia and assisted suicide in accordance with Korean affairs will be the least preparation the state must provide for the death of the people’s dignity, the right to die happily without fear will free every moment of life, and transform daily life into a consciously elevated, love-inspired life. Because such a life would be an expression of true life, in which well-being and well-dying harmonized. 한국은 「연명의료결정법」으로 좁은 범위의 안락사를 인정하고 있지만, 아직은 안락사와 관련하여 주요 선진국들이 취한 조치에 미치지 못하고 있고, 따라서 헌법 제10조가 보장하는 ‘인간의 존엄과 가치 및 행복추구권’이 죽음에 대한 자기결정권과 웰다잉권의 영역에서 실질적으로 실현되지 못하고 있다. 선진 OECD 국가들은 사회적 요청에 부응하여 실질적 인권보장 차원에서 의사조력자살 및 적극적 안락사를 빠른 속도로 허용하는 추세에 있고, 한국을 포함 전 세계적으로 만연하는 사회 병리적 상황들과 적극적 안락사를 찬성하는 높은 수치의 조사결과는 우리 사회도 적극적 안락사와 의사조력자살 허용을 강하게 요청하고 있음을 시사한다. 국가인권위원회 등 인권 관련 국가기관들과 국회는 공조하여 이들 안락사 허용 여부와 관련한 전문적 실태조사 및 사회적 합의의 도출과 후속 입법 조치 그리고 ‘안락사 및 조력사 심사원’ 설치를 위한 인적·물적 인프라 구축 등에 관심을 기울이기를 희망한다. 선진 입법에 대한 충분한 참조를 기반으로 한국 실정에 맞는 적극적 안락사 및 조력자살을 인정하는 입법 조치는 국민의 품위 있고 존엄한 죽음을 위해서 국가가 제공해야만 하는 최소한의 준비가 될 것이며, 공포 없이 행복하게 죽을 권리는 생명체의 매 순간을 자유롭게 하고, 매일의 삶을 의식적으로 고양되고 사랑으로 각성된 자유의 삶으로 변모시킬 것이다. 왜냐하면 그런 삶이야말로 웰빙과 웰다잉이 조화된 진정한 생명의 표현일 것이기 때문이다.

[‘우리 사회의 의사조력자살 법제화’에 대한 논평] 존엄하게 죽을 권리와 의사조력자살

이석배 한국의료윤리학회 2022 한국의료윤리학회지 Vol.25 No.4

In a recent proposed amendment to Korea’s legislation governing decisions on life-sustaining treatment, physician-assisted suicide is characterized as a form of “death with dignity.” However, there is no legal right to suicide in South Korea and the idea that physician-assisted suicide is a permissible and dignified way of dying is based on a misunderstanding of the constitutional right of self-determination, which entails only a right to refuse unwanted medical care. This article ex-plains these misunderstandings concerning the concept of death with dignity and a patient’s right to self-determination and critically reviews the proposed legislation concerning physician-assisted suicide.

죽을 권리에 관한 연구

문재완(Jaewan Moon) 한국헌법학회 2020 憲法學硏究 Vol.26 No.3

The purpose of paper is to review laws on physician-assisted suicide (hereinafter refereed to as “PAS”) worldwide and to suggest enacting a law on PAS in Korea as a way of guaranteeing human dignity on the last minute of life. Recently PAS is becoming a hot issue in the world. More and more countries are on the list of allowing PAS. PAS is often called as death with dignity. However, in Korea, death with dignity is usually referred to ceasing life-sustaining treatment for terminally-ill patients. PAS is forbidden by the criminal law in Korea. If a physician assists a patient to kill himself by providing toxic materials, the article 252 (2) of the criminal act, which stipulates that a person who aids another to commit suicide shall be punished by imprisonment for at least one year up to ten years, will apply to him. I argue that the clause is unconstitutional on condition that it applies to PAS. For it violates the right to self-determination derived from human dignity which is the core value of the Korean Constitution. It is the most dignified and autonomous action by a human being that he decides the time, place and manner of his last moment as a human being. It is noticeable that Korea’s suicide rate, 26.6 deaths per 100,000 in 2018, is the highest among members of the OECD (Organisation for Economics Co-operation and Development) and two times higher than most countries with legalization of PAS. Considering the reality that 37.5 Koreans on average commit suicide everyday, more than half of whom take the way of hanging, it is time to legalize PAS for terminally-ill adults who wish to die with dignity along with strengthening suicide prevention policies.