안락사에서 제기되는 윤리적 문제에 대한 세계평화통일가정연합의 견해

강명호 통일사상학회 2022 통일사상연구 Vol.22 No.-

유병장수의 시대를 맞아 안락사에 대한 담론이 팽배하는 가운데 그에 따른 윤리 적 문제 또한 부각되었다. 이러한 시점에 세계평화통일가정연합에서는 안락사에 대 해 어떻게 바라보는지, 안락사에서 제기되는 윤리적 문제에 대해 어떻게 판단하는지 를 연구했다. 안락사는 일반적으로 ‘심각한 정신적・육체적 고통을 겪고 있는 환자를 자연적 수명이 다하기 전에 끊어주거나 일찍 죽도록 적극적 치료를 중단하여 죽음 에 이르게 하는 것’으로 정의한다. 죽음을 야기하는 행위의 양상에 따라 적극적 안락 사와 소극적 안락사로 나뉜다. 죽임을 당하는 사람의 의사 표명에 따라 자발적 안락 사와 비자발적 안락사, 또는 반자발적 안락사로 나뉜다. 안락사에서 제기되는 윤리 적 쟁점은 첫째, 인간은 스스로 ‘죽을 권리’가 있는가 하는 문제이다. 자발적 안락사 나 조력자살이 이 윤리적 쟁점에 놓여있다. 두 번째로 안락사에서 제기되는 윤리적 쟁점은 인간은 타인을 ‘죽일 권리’가 있는가 하는 문제이다. 안락사에 대한 기본적 판단근거는 인간관이다. 인간관에 따라서 윤리적 문제를 달리 해석한다. 인간이면 누구나 인간 생명에 대한 존엄성을 가진 인격체라고 보는 인격주의 인간관과 인간 과 인격체를 분리해서 인간의 가치를 심리・사회적 특징을 지닌 자와 지니지 못한 자를 구별하여 판단하는 자유주의 인간관으로 대별된다. 가정연합의 인간관은 인격 주의 인간관이다. 인간은 하나님으로부터 생명을 부여받은 신래적(神來的) 존재로서 결과적 존재이다. 인간은 하나님의 자녀로서 신격(神格)의 가치를 지닌 존엄한 존재이다. 인간은 육신과 영혼이 통일된 존재로서 영혼을 사랑의 완성체로 성장시키 기 위해 주어진 생명을 잘 지켜야 할 존재이다. 인간 생명의 주권은 하나님이 갖고 있기 때문에 인간은 스스로 죽을 수 있는 권리를 갖지 못하고, 타인을 죽일 수 있는 권리도 갖지 못한다. 따라서 가정연합에서 볼 때, 자발적 안락사나 적극적이든 소극 적이든 안락사는 반윤리적인 것이라 할 수 있다. 다만 비자발적 안락사에 있어서 뇌 사 상태에 준하거나 말기환자가 연명치료 중에 있는 경우에 가족들의 합의와 교회 의 동의 속에 연명의료를 중단하거나 유보하는 것은 자의적이든 비자의적이든 윤리 적으로 어긋나지 않는다고 본다. Amid the widespread discourse on euthanasia in the era of longevity accompanied by disease, ethical issues have also emerged. On this point, the Family Federation studied how to view euthanasia and how to judge ethical issues raised in euthanasia. Euthanasia is generally defined as ‘the act of killing a patient who has significant mental or physical pain before their natural life expectancy or letting the patient die through stopping aggressive treatment of the patient’. It is divided into active euthanasia and passive euthanasia according to the pattern of death-causing behavior. It is also divided into voluntary euthanasia, involuntary euthanasia, or nonvoluntary euthanasia according to the expression of intention of the person being killed. The ethical issue raised in euthanasia is first, whether humans have the right to die on their own. Voluntary euthanasia or assisted suicide is included in this ethical issue. The second ethical issue raised in euthanasia is whether humans have the right to kill others. The basis for the basic judgment on euthanasia involves the perspective on human beings. Ethical issues are interpreted differently depending on the view of human beings. It is roughly divided into a personalism view of human beings that any human being is seen as a person with dignity to human life and the non-personalism view of human beings that separates human values from those with psychological and social characteristics and those who do not. The perspective on human beings of the FFWPU is a personalism's view of human beings. Humans are the resultant beings, that is divine beings who have been given life by God. As a child of God, man is a dignified being with the value of God. Humans are beings in which the physical self and the spirit self are unified and must protect the life given to grow the spirit self into a completion of love. Since God has the sovereignty of human life, humans do not have the right to die on their own, nor do they have the right to kill others. Therefore, from the FFWPU perspective, voluntary euthanasia, active or passive, can be said to be anti-ethical. However, in involuntary euthanasia, if a brain-dead patient or a terminally ill patient is undergoing life-sustaining treatment, then suspending life-sustaining treatment according the agreement of the family and the consent of the church, it is not considered to be unethical.

산전진단에 나타나는 공리주의와 우생사상에 대한 인격주의 생명윤리적 고찰

최정임(Choi Jung Im) 가톨릭생명윤리연구소 2015 인격주의 생명윤리 Vol.5 No.1

Medicine and medical practice aims for the good of human being, and the influence of medicine has been more increased owing to the scientific advance in technology and knowledge. As medicine is to choose and apply right scientific methods for a particular symptom or disease to protect human life, the appropriateness of related human behavior is checked not only from a scientific perspective but from a philosophical and anthropological perspective. Prenatal diagnosis is a part of fetal and neonatal medicine, which has been developed to make an accurate diagnosis of the health status of a fetus. It is carried out to provide appropriate support to lower perinatal mortality in the restricted maternal environment. If prenatal diagnosis shows that there is something wrong with a fetus, a proper action should be taken as a follow-up measure, or a treatment plan should be drawn up. Nowadays, however, abortion may be chosen as well as adequate treatment when the fetus is found to have any disease or abnormality. In that case, the result of prenatal diagnosis that was conducted as medical care serves as the ground for abortion that is done as a follow-up measure. What kind of follow-up measure is taken depends on the philosophical and anthropological way of interpreting the result of prenatal diagnosis, not on the scientific result of prenatal diagnosis itself. Accordingly, it is necessary to reconsider the philosophical and anthropological aspect of abortion from the critical standpoint. The logic of justifying abortion as a follow-up measure is the influence of utilitarianism and eugenics. Utilitarianism regards based on that difference sentience as necessary human nature and discriminates human being. It does not approve a right embryo and fetus or a young child's right to life, who belong to human species. According to this theory, it is better choose abortion of the fetus who is diagnosed with any disease or abnormality if the total amount of pleasure and pain that everybody related to the birth of the fetus experience is taken into account. According to eugenics, man is viewed as a higher organism based on the theory of evolution. This theory is affected by the theory of natural selection. According to natural selection, human characteristics are based on genetic character, and the value of a person's existence and future are evaluated by arbitrary or genetic characteristics. If the persons whose genetic quality is excellent, it is chosen. It is possible to reject or remove undesirable genetics traits from the person. According to these two theories, abortion is the oncost likely option to choose as a follow-up measure for prenatal diagnosis. According to personalist bioethics based on personalist tradition, human being is person. Person is a single, independent organic whole. It is an end itself and is an unity compose of soul and body. Person is ultimate being and not substitutable. In personalist bioethics tradition, the fact that a fetus is diagnosed as any disease or abnormality implies that the fetus needs a medical help. This does not change its substantial value and its dignity. Therefore, personalist understanding of human being should serve as the basis of prenatal diagnosis.