자살에 관한 형법적 고찰

박광현 중앙법학회 2012 中央法學 Vol.14 No.3

The legal sentiment of the people seems to catch up the teachings of wise men that some suicide are essentially free and rational act, furthermore noble, heroic and obligatory act. Meanwhile, the traditional moral sense of suicide has been changed by the emphasis on the patients' right of self-determination according to the shift of biomedical paradigm. Notwithstanding, the new trend does not succeed in breaking the taboo of suicide. Suicide has been considered not a expression of basic human rights or liberty, but as a evil to be avoided and prevented. The right of self-determination on suicide is restricted because of prudent policy of suicide, risk of trend to take human life lightly. Only the skeleton of the right of self-determination based on human dignity remains in the end of life. In many cases, the legality theory of suicide or the legal free zone theory of suicide is supported by the independent crime theory of suicide, but we shall not regard disposal of life as legal conduct or evaluation-suspended conduct. Because the interest of respect for each individual's self-determination right should not accomplished in the matter of life disposal that means destruction of each individual. In the concern of life disposal, both of the right self-determination(autonomy) and life(existence) are violated in homicide, but only life(existence) is violated in the crimes of homicide with consent. Such difference between these two types of crime is the base of reduction illegality and punishment of homicide with consent and suicide participation against homicide. Suicide is illegal misconduct although it has committed on one's responsibility. Because blocking commitment of suicide is completely legal and adequate behavior without composing violence whether suicide is elf-answerable or not. The core of the problem of the crime of aiding and abetting suicide(§252②, Criminal Law) is a rational explanation for the basis of punishability for suicide participation and its commencement of the commission from premises that suicide participation is provided in the same article with murder upon request and homicide with consent and it has same statutory penalty. Although it is the predominant view that suicide participation is a separate principal offense type in spite of the act patterns of committing abetment and assist, actual profit of distinction suicide participation that is provided in the form of accomplice from murder upon request in the form of principal is not inconsiderable. Even though suicide participation is punishable enough by being prepared its special constituent requisite, the dependency of accomplice shall not be disregarded for the reasons of act of committing in the accomplice form of abetting and assist. Criminal Act Aricle 252(Murder upon Request or with Consent)(1) A person who kills another upon ones request or with ones consent shall be punished by imprisonment for less than one year nor more than then years. (2) The preceding paragraph shall apply to a person who instigates or aids and abets another to commit suicide.

자살에 관한 형법적 고찰

朴?顯(Kwang Hyun Park) 중앙법학회 2012 中央法學 Vol.14 No.3

The legal sentiment of the people seems to catch up the teachings of wise men that some suicide are essentially free and rational act, furthermore noble, heroic and obligatory act. Meanwhile, the traditional moral sense of suicide has been changed by the emphasis on the patients` right of self-determination according to the shift of biomedical paradigm. Notwithstanding, the new trend does not succeed in breaking the taboo of suicide. Suicide has been considered not a expression of basic human rights or liberty, but as a evil to be avoided and prevented. The right of self-determination on suicide is restricted because of prudent policy of suicide, risk of trend to take human life lightly. Only the skeleton of the right of self-determination based on human dignity remains in the end of life. In many cases, the legality theory of suicide or the legal free zone theory of suicide is supported by the independent crime theory of suicide, but we shall not regard disposal of life as legal conduct or evaluation-suspended conduct. Because the interest of respect for each individual`s self-determination right should not accomplished in the matter of life disposal that means destruction of each individual, In the concern of life disposal, both of the right self-determination(autonomy) and life(existence) are violated in homicide, but only life(existence) is violated in the crimes of homicide with consent. Such difference between these two types of crime is the base of reduction illegality and punishment of homicide with consent and suicide participation against homicide. Suicide is illegal misconduct although it has committed on one`s responsibility, Because blocking commitment of suicide is completely legal and adequate behavior without composing violence whether suicide is elf-answerable or not. The core of the problem of the crime of aiding and abetting suicide(§252②, Criminal Law) is a rational explanation for the basis of punishability for suicide participation and its commencement of the commission from premises that suicide participation is provided in the same article with murder upon request and homicide with consent and it has same statutory penalty. Although it is the predominant view that suicide participation is a separate principal offense type in spite of the act patterns of committing abetment and assist, actual profit of distinction suicide participation that is provided in the form of accomplice from murder upon request in the form of principal is not inconsiderable. Even though suicide participation is punishable enough by being prepared its special constituent requisite, the dependency of accomplice shall not be disregarded for the reasons of act of committing in the accomplice form of abetting and assist. Criminal Act Aricle 252(Murder upon Request or with Consent) (1) A person who kills another upon ones request or with ones consent shall be punished by imprisonment for less than one year nor more than then years. (2) The preceding paragraph shall apply to a person who instigates or aids and abets another to commit suicide.

한국 사회의 자살에 대한 시선

송현동(Song, Hyeon-Dong) 한신대학교 종교와문화연구소(구 한신인문학연구소) 2011 종교문화연구 Vol.- No.16

This article is to examine the characteristic of the eyes upon suicide in Korean society. In most societies, for a long time, suicide has been a taboo and regarded as a forbidden topic to talk about. It has been not so much as an expression of basic human rights or liberty as a sin or an evil to be avoided. For the community, suicide has been an immoral and harmful behavior. In Korean society, suicide has greatly increase in recent years. In especial, the sudden suicide of former President Roh Moo-hyun was one of the most shocking incidents in Korean society. Accordingly, numerous and different interpretations has presented with regard to his death. Some have defined it as a political murder, and others as an egoistic or anomie suicide. As a result, suicide has come to attract a great concern from the public. As suicide is not mere a personal or social problem, we have to start from the question on suicide itself. Concerning the suicidal behavior and cause of the dead, it is not proper for those who are left to arbitrarily judge it according to specific political and social stances. It is necessary to be allowed for humans to think and talk about how to finish their lives. Suicide is a matter that should be discussed in relation with the decision and choice of those who are standing at the edge of life. Because the people has freedom to make one’s life planning. While humans have no right to get born, they have the right to die.

조력자살과 형법 -안락사의 일 유형으로서의 조력자살을 중심으로-

이주희 ( Joo Hee Lee ) 한국법정책학회 2011 법과 정책연구 Vol.11 No.3

현재 우리나라에서 진행되고 있는 안락사의 논의에서 조력자살은 그다지 주목받지 못하고 있다. 하지만 평균수명의 연장 및 현대의학기술의 발달을 비롯한 제반사정의 변화 그리고 환자의 자기결정권 보장에 대한 요구 등을 감안할 때 조만간 조력자살은 중요한 안락사 문제가 될 것이다. 이에 본 논문은 조력자살에 대한 본격적 논의를 위한 정지작업으로서 안락사로서의 조력자살에 관한 시론적 연구를 해 보고자 한다. 본고의 대상이 된 조력자살은 일반적인 조력자살이 아니라 안락사에 해당하는 조력자살이다. 이러한 조력자살은 대체로 시한부 질병으로 여명이 얼마 남지 않은 환자 내지 불치의 질병으로 극심한 고통을 지속적으로 겪고 있는 환자가 명시적으로 밝힌 자발적이고 진지한 죽음의 의사를 전제로 하여 타인의 조력을 받아 스스로 목숨을 끊은 경우를 의미하게 될 것이다. 현행법상 조력자살은 포괄적으로 금지된다. 우리 형법은 절대적 생명보호 원칙을 전제로 하여 자살방조죄의 범죄구성요건을 두고 있다. 하지만 조력자살의 포괄적 금지에 부여된 정당성은 최근 삶과 죽음에 관한 자기결정권에 대한 요구가 커지면서 그 위상이 흔들리고 있다. 즉 심사숙고하여 자기 책임 하에 결정한 환자의 죽음의 의사는 존중되어야 한다는 것이며, 이로 인해 오직 환자의 이익을 위해 선의로 환자를 도와준 제3자에 대한 가벌성이 의문시되고 있다. 이러한 조력자살 문제에 대한 해결방안으로 제시되는 해석론은 다양한 위법성 내지 책임 조각사유들 중에서 무엇을 적용하여 타인의 자살에 조력한 제3자의 가벌성을 탈락시킬 것인가에 주력한다. 그러나 해석론을 통한 문제 해결은 무엇보다 조력자살행위를 포괄적으로 금지하고 있는 현행법체계를 전제로 할 때 관철되기 어렵다고 하겠다. 해석론에 이어 가능한 해결방안으로 고려해 볼 수 있는 것이 입법자의 결단을 통한 조력자살의 합법화, 즉 입법론이다. 이 때 안락사로서의 조력자살의 문제를 입법적으로 해결한 네덜란드와 미국 오리건 주의 안락사법에 대한 고찰은 조력자살의 허용과 관련하여 올바른 입법방향이 어떤 것인지 또한 반드시 검토해야 할 쟁점들이 무엇인지를 시사해 줄 수 있을 것이다. 그러나 최종적으로 이러한 외국법제를 본받아 조력자살의 문제를 입법적으로 해결할 것인지에 대한 결정은 온전히 우리의 몫으로 남겨져 있다. 그러므로 이제부터 우리는 과연 조력자살을 합법화할 수 있는 구체적인 여건들이 마련되어 있는가를 우리 현실에 대한 냉철한 분석을 바탕으로 계속해서 진단해나가야 한다. 동시에 조력자살을 합법화를 위한 전제조건들이 충족되었다는 가정 하에 입법을 추진한다면 어떤 요건과 절차를 통해 조력자살을 허용할 것인가에 대해서도 고민해야 한다. 우리나라와는 정신적, 문화적, 의료환경적 배경이 다른 외국의 입법을 그대로 답습하는 것은 바람직하다고 할 수 없다. 규범의 실효성을 제고하는 한편 조력자살행위의 오남용을 막아 환자의 권익을 보호하기 위해서는 우리의 현실과 국민의 정서를 고려하여 엄격한 조력자살의 허용 요건과 절차를 마련하기 위해 노력해야 할 것이다. In the current debate about euthanasia in Korea, assisted suicide has not received wide attention until now. But considering the altering conditions -like medical developments and life extension - and the protection of the right of self-determination, assisted suicide will become a important problem in connection with euthanasia. Assisted suicide covered in this article is specially related to euthanasia. In this case, assisted suicide means that the terminally ill patients who cannot live longer or are in great pain or suffering commit suicide with the help of others. Under current law, assisted suicide is generally punished. The korean penal law has the crime of assisting a suicide in order to protect the human life effectively. However the justification for the punishing the assisting a suicide is challenged by the asking for the respect of the right of self-determination. That is to say, the deliberate decision of patients to take their own life should be respected so that it is doubtful to punish someone for helping the patients realize their decision in good faith and for their sakes alone. The problem of assisted suicide can be solved by the legal interpretation. It is crucial to find any justification or immunity to apply for the case of assisted suicide. But this method would be difficult to succeed because of the blanket ban on assisting a suicide according to the korean penal regulation. The another solution is de lege ferenda, i.e., legalization of assisted suicide. In this context, it would be very useful to examine some countries which legalized assisted suicide. This investigation will show us the right legislative direction and the major issues in allowing assisted suicide in Korea. Though whether assisted suicide as euthanasia should be legalized or not is in our hands. Currently, it can be honestly said that the prerequisites for the legalization of assisted suicide are not satisfied. We have limited social safety nets including national health insurance, the hospice & palliative care is lacking in providing care for the terminally ill, and there is no consensus on this sensitive issues. Therefore, we must do our best to fulfill the prerequisites for the legalization of assisted suicide. Moreover, we must consider seriously which requirements and procedures should be set up. In order to prevent to misuse of a legalized assisted suicide, these standards should correspond with the public mood and the present conditions of Korea.

존엄사의 헌법적 보장-죽음에 대한 자기결정권의 구성요건 설정을 중심으로-

주재경 원광대학교 법학연구소 2022 圓光法學 Vol.38 No.4

South Korea recognizes death with dignity only in the form of cessation of life-sustaining treatment for patients in the process of dying. Accordingly, a terminally ill patient or a patient in a persistent vegetative state cannot make a decision to die with dignity, and even if he or she is the target, there are limitations in choosing a method of dying with dignity such as physician-assisted suicide. These limitations cannot preclude discussion from the stage of component requirements. Therefore, in the decision to die with dignity, it is necessary to ensure that death with dignity is sufficiently guaranteed through the establishment of the component requirements for the right to self-determination on death. Regarding the requirements for becoming the subject of the right to self-determination on death in the decision to die with dignity, the requirements of irreversibility and the uselessness of treatment become the focal points. Accordingly, it is against the principle of equality to exclude a patient who has no essential difference from a patient in the process of dying and who meets the requirements from the subject. Therefore, in principle, it is desirable to acknowledge the subjectivity of the right to self-determination on death for these patients. First, in terms of the right to defense of the right to self-determination on death, the subject of the decision to die with dignity can request that the state stop restrictions on physician-assisted suicide. In the same respect, it is possible to ask the state to make a decision to discontinue general life-sustaining treatment. Next, based on the social rights aspect of the right to self-determination on death, the subject of decision to die with dignity can claim the right to receive social insurance and public assistance from the state. In particular, it can be requested that the state prepare overall welfare conditions such as hospice and palliative care systems so that patients' self-determination can be free from economic pressure. And, in terms of the protective right of the right to self-determination on death, the subject of the decision to die with dignity may claim the right to receive assistance from a doctor to the state. For example, if death with dignity is carried out by a private person other than a doctor, the right to self-determination on death may be violated, so the patient can request legislation to the state that obligates the participation of doctors in the decision to die with dignity. Lastly, in terms of the procedural right of the right to self-determination on death, in relation to organizations, supplementary legislative requests can be made to the state to expand the establishment or vitalize the operation of the Medical Institution Ethics Committee or the Public Ethics Committee. Regarding the procedure, it may be possible to request the state to prepare legislation to supplement the procedure for implementing death with dignity.

미국헌법상 의사조력자살

허순철(Huh, Soon-Chul) 한국토지공법학회 2010 土地公法硏究 Vol.49 No.-

소생가능성이 없는 말기의 환자가 의사의 도움을 얻어 품위있는 죽음을 맞이할 수 있는 권리가 헌법상 보장되는 것인가의 문제, 즉 의사조력자살의 문제가 미국연방대법원의 Washington v. Glucksberg 판결에서 논의된 바 있다. 이러한 의사조력자살은 연명치료중단과는 고의와 인과관계의 측면에서 구별된다는 것이 동법원의 입장이다. 즉, 환자가 연명치료를 거부하는 경우에는 자신의 질병으로 사망하는 것이지만, 의사가 처방한 극약을 먹었다면 그 약으로 인해 살해된 것이며, 연명치료중단의 경우 의사는 환자의 바람을 존중하는 것인 반면에 의사조력자살의 경우에는 의사가 환자의 사망에 대해 고의를 가지고 있으므로 양자는 명확히 구분된다는 것이다. 그러나 이에 대해서는 연명치료중단의 경우에도 치료중단이 환자 사망의 원인이며, 의사가 사망이라는 결과를 의도한 것은 아니라고 할 수 없을 뿐만 아니라, 연명치료중단 행위 역시 작위로 봐야 한다는 점에서 양자의 구별은 비판받고 있다. 한편 연방대법원은 Washington v. Glucksberg 판결에서 다음과 같이 판결하였다. 즉, 미국법상 자살방조는 범죄이며, 워싱턴주는 의사조력자살을 금지하는 법률을 가지고 있다. 의사조력자살은 연명치료거부와는 달리 법적 보호를 받지 못하며 양자는 전혀 다른 것이다. 워싱턴주는 인간의 생명을 보호하는데 있어서 무조건적인 이익을 가지고 있으며, 사회적 약자의 보호와 의사의 직업적 윤리를 보호할 책임이 있다. 또한 네델란드와 같은 외국의 사례에서도 보듯이 의사조력자살이 남용될 위험이 있다. 연명치료중단 이후에도 환자가 장기간 생명을 유지하는 경우에는 의사의 연명치료 중단 시술과 환자의 사망 사이의 인과관계는 단절된다고 볼 것이므로 미국연방대법원이 연명치료중단과 의사조력자살을 구별하는 것은 논리적으로는 타당해 보인다. 그러나 의사조력자살이 일반적인 의미의 자살을 허용하는 것은 아니며, 말기 환자의 자발적인 결정에 따라 품위 있는 죽음을 맞이할 수 있도록 하는 것이 자기결정권 내지 인간의 존엄에 상응한 것이라는 점을 유의하여야 할 것이다. There was a constitutional question whether a terminally ill patient has a right to physician assisted suicide to end his or her life with dignity before the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington v. Glucksberg. In Vacco v. Quill, the Court had already decided that the distinction between assisting suicide and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment is reasonable with regard to the fundamental legal principles of intent and causation. The Court decided that when a patient refuses life-sustaining medical treatment, he dies from an underlying fatal disease or pathology; but if a patient ingests lethal medication prescribed by a physician, he is killed by that medication. Furthermore, a physician who withdraws, or honors a patient's refusal to begin, life-sustaining medical treatment purposefully intends, or may so intend, only to respect his patient's wishes. However, a doctor who assists a suicide must, necessarily and indubitably, intend primarily that the patient be made dead. But the decision has been criticized because in case of withdrawing life-sustaining treatment the withdrawing act would be the main cause of death, and it seems difficult to say that the doctor had not intended to produce death. It is also contended since ending treatment and administering substances to end life are both acts of commission with the same purpose and effect. In Washington v. Glucksberg, the Court decided that in almost every State it is a crime to assist a suicide, and the Washington statute prohibits physician assisted suicide. The Court also said that there is a distinction between withdrawing treatment and administering drugs to end a person's life which is not protected by law. The State has an unqualified interest in the preservation of human life and in protecting the vulnerable persons and groups and the integrity and ethics of the medical profession. The concern about the abuse of physician assisted suicide is further supported by evidence about the practice of euthanasia in the Netherlands. The fact that a patient may live for a long time after ending the treatment logically reinforces the distinction between withdrawing treatment and administering drugs to end a patient's life. We should be careful that physician assisted suicide does not mean to permit all people to suicide and terminally ill patient has the right to self determination and human dignity in deciding matters affecting life or death.

조력자살에 관한 독일의 사법적·입법적 논의

정다은 (재) 국가생명윤리정책원 2023 생명, 윤리와 정책 Vol.7 No.2

2022년 6월 우리 국회에, 말기 환자의 자살을 도운 의사에게 형법상 자살방조죄의 적용을 배제하는 내용의 법률안이 발의되면서, 의사조력자살에 관한 사회적 논의가 활발히 시작되고, 해외사례에 관한 관심이 증가하고 있다. 독일 사례 또한 그중 하나로, 업무상의 자살방조를 처벌하는 내용의 형법전 제217조에 대해 연방헌법재판소가 위헌을 선언한 후, 최근 독일에서는 조력자살의 허용을 규율하기 위한 입법 논의가 진행 중이다. 이 연구에서는 독일 형법전 제217조의 도입배경 및 입법과정에서의 논의와 위헌성을 둘러싼 논란, 연방헌법재판소의 동 규정에 대한 위헌결정 내용과 이에 대한 법학계의 평가, 조력자살의 새로운 규율을 위한 연방의회에서의 입법 논의와 이에 대한 법학계의 논의를 연혁적으로 검토하여, 조력자살과 관련해 독일 사례에서 문제가된 다양한 법적 쟁점들을 분석한다. 나아가 이러한 독일의 선행 논의가 향후 우리나라의 조력자살 관련 사법적·입법적 논의에 제공하는 시사점을 제시한다. The issue of physician-assisted suicide has gained significant attention following the introduction of a bill to the Korean National Assembly in June 2022, which seeks to pre- vent doctors who assist terminally ill patients in ending their lives from being prosecuted for assisted suicide. This bill has sparked intense social debate on assisted suicide. Simul- taneously, there is growing interest in international cases, such as the recent judgement by the German Federal Constitutional Court to declare Article 217 of the German Criminal Code, which penalized repeated assisted suicide, as unconstitutional. This judgement has prompted new legislative discussions in Germany regarding the regulation of assisted sui- cide. In this context, this article aims to analyze various legal issues raised in the German case of assisted suicide. It covers the background and legislative process leading to Article 217 of the German Criminal Code, the debates and controversies surrounding its con- stitutionality, the content of the Federal Constitutional Court’s judgement declaring it unconstitutional, legal scholars’ assessments, and the Federal Council’s legislative discus- sions regarding new regulations of assisted suicide. Finally, this article provides insights into how these discussions in Germany may influence future legal and legislative debates on assisted suicide in South Korea.

[‘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.

죽음에 있어서 의사의 조력 행위와 자살방조죄의 정당성 논의 - 고령자의 존엄하게 죽을 권리의 관점에서 -

이성기 법조협회 2023 法曹 Vol.72 No.6

생활수준의 향상, 의료기술의 발달에 따라 말기 질환을 겪으면서도 생명의 유지가 가능한 시대를 맞으면서 생명의 보호는 절대적인 것이 아닌 상대적인 권리로 인식되고 있다. 이에 따라 개인의 죽음에 대한 선택도 헌법상 권리로 인식되고 있다. 헌법상 자기결정권은 죽음에 대한 선택에서도 인정되어야 한다. 환자의 결정이 진지하게 숙고된 끝에 내려진 것이고 본인의 객관적 이익에 부합한다면 국가는 이를 존중해야 할 의무가 있다. 이러한 점에서 의사조력사의 정당성은 인정되어야 한다. 스스로 선택한 존엄한 죽음에 있어서 개인에게 국가의 부당한 개입을 방어할 권리가 인정되고 국가를 상대로 필요한 입법 마련을 요구할 권리가 인정되어야 한다. 의사조력사의 합법화로 인한 부작용은 경계해야 하지만 해외 사례의 부작용을 일반화하는 것도 문제이다. 의사조력사를 합법화한 국가는 그 입법화과정에 따라 부작용의 발생 양상도 다르다. (1)캐나다, 독일과 같이 헌법상 권리로 인정한 국가가 있는가 하면, (2)네덜란드와 같이 위법성조각사유로 인정한 국가, (3)미국과 같이 위헌결정 없이입법을 통해 합법화한 국가, (4)영국과 같이 기소가이드라인을 통해 자살방조죄를 일정부분 제한하는 경우가 있다. 이중 캐나다, 독일, 네덜란드와 같이 죽음에 관한 환자의 선택을 헌법상 권리로 인정하거나 위법성조각사유로 인정한 국가에서는 이후 적용 대상과 요건을 확대해 나가면서 소위 ‘미끄러운 경사로’의 부작용이 나타나고 있다. 반면에 미국과 같이 위헌결정 없이 입법적 결단으로 의사조력사를 허용한 경우 입법과정에서 부작용을 최소화 할 여지가 있다. 이러한 관점에서 볼 때, 의사조력 행위를 예외 없이 처벌하도록 하는 현행 자살방조죄 및 관련 법리는 개인의 죽음에 대한 결정권 관점에서 재검토할 필요가 있다. 그리고 헌법적 판단보다 입법정책의 관점에서 의사조력사의 합법화 길을 모색해 나갈 필요가 있다. At the time of the enactment of criminal law, the state's protection of individual life was an absolute proposition. Accordingly, the legitimacy of comprehensive punishment for those involved in suicide was recognized. However, with the improvement of living standards and the development of medical technology, we are entering an era where it is possible to sustain life even while suffering from a terminal illness. The protection of life is now acknowledged as a relative right rather than an absolute one. Consequently, an individual's choice of death is also recognized as a constitutional right. Now, the right to self-determination must be acknowledged in the choice of death. If the patient's decision was made after serious deliberation and aligns with the patient's objective interests, the state has an obligation to respect it. In this regard, the legitimacy of physician-assisted death must be recognized. In a dignified death of one's own choice, an individual's right to defend against unjust intervention by the state and the right to demand necessary legislation against the state must also be recognized. Although we must be wary of the side effects caused by the legalization of physician-assisted death, it is also problematic to generalize the side effects from overseas cases. Countries that have legalized physician-assisted death show that the occurrence of side effects varies depending on the legislative process. Canada, Germany, and the Netherlands, which recognize the patient's choice regarding death as a constitutional right or as a ground for illegality, are showing side effects of the so-called 'slippery slope' as the scope of application and age were expanded. On the other hand, in cases where physician-assisted death is permitted through legislative decision without being ruled unconstitutional, as in the United States, side effects can be minimized during the legislative process. From this perspective, the criminal law's crime of assisting suicide, which punishes acts of physician assistance without exception, and related legal principles must be reconsidered from the perspective of an individual's right to decide on death.

「자살예방 및 생명존중문화 조성을 위한 법률」 제정 이후 법제의 변화와 과제

최윤영 사회복지법제학회 2022 사회복지법제연구 Vol.13 No.2

With the enactment of the 「Act on the Prevention of Suicide and the Creation of a Culture of Respect for Life」(the Suicide Prevention Act), the suicide prevention policy that had been mixed before the enactment of the Act was reorganized and the responsibility of the state, local governments, and the private sector was stipulated. However it has been pointed out that several problems are making difficult to implement the policy for preventing suicide. This study indicates the fact that the scope of support of the law is limited to individual-centered mental health treatment, that the preparation of social, economic and pan-government support measures is insufficient, that there are limitations in enactment of legislation and social public discussion compared to the importance of policy, that a phased policy approach is insufficient due to a limited budget, and that policy-making based on empirical data and evidence are not available due to lack of basic research. This study examines the policy implementation status and legislative improvement following the enactment of the Suicide Prevention Act, and aims to remind that it is not easy to fundamentally solve the problem with only one-line suicide prevention, crisis response and follow-up management, unless the structural problems of our society are addressed. In addition, it suggests tasks that require improvement in policy and legislation such as addition of the Suicide Prevention Act to the Social Welfare Act, the need to revise the Personal Information Protection Act, adjust the scope of suicide-dangerous items, establish specific measures for people at risk of suicide, and strengthen the authority and responsibility of local governments. 자살예방법의 제정으로 법제정 이전 혼재되어 있던 자살예방정책을 정비하고, 국가와 지방자치단체, 민간의 책임을 명문화하였지만, 법의 지원범위가 개인 중심의 정신보건적 치료로 한정되는 점, 사회적·경제적·범정부적 지원책 마련이 미흡하다는 점, 정책의 중요성에 비해 법제화 및 사회적 공론화에 한계가 있다는 점, 제한된 예산으로 인해 단계적인 정책접근이 미흡하다는 점, 그리고 기반연구 부족으로 인해 경험적 자료와 근거를 기반을 한 정책수행이 어렵다는 점이 문제로 지적되어 왔다. 본 논문에서는 자살예방법의 제정 이후 그에 따른 정책 추진 상황 및 입법 개선 내용 등을 살펴보고, 우리 사회의 구조적 문제를 짚고 가지 않는 한 단선적인 자살예방과 위기대응 및 사후관리만으로는 근본 해결이 쉽지 않음을 환기하면서 향후 과제를 제시하였다. 구체적으로 정책적 측면에서 지역맞춤형 근거기반 정책추진 지원, 지역사회 고위험군 발굴‧연계 체계 강화, 고위험군에 대한 적극적 개입을 통한 자살위험 제거, 대상별 자살예방 추진, 자살위험 차단, 위험군 대상 집중홍보 및 생명존중 인식개선에 대해 검토함과 더불어 이를 위한 제도화 노력와 ‘자살예방 및 생명존중문화 조성을 위한 법률’의 입법 변화를 살펴보았다. 정책과 입법상 개선이 필요한 향후과제로서 사회복지사업법에 자살예방법 추가, 개인정보보호법 개정 필요성, 개별 대상군을 위한 규정 보완, 자살위해물건의 범위 조정, 자살위험자에 대한 구체적인 대책 수립, 지방자치단체의 권한 및 책임 강화를 제언하였다.