플라톤과 토마스 모어의 유토피아 사상 안에서 본 안락사의 문제

이상임 한국동서철학회 2019 동서철학연구 Vol.0 No.94

The highest concern of the human beings in general would be the pursuit of happiness. Human beings pursue not only individual happiness, but also the happiness of the whole society or nation as a whole, community. And the goal is toward a society where everyone is happy, beyond that happiness, to a perfect society, that is, the most ideal society, utopia. One of the elements of happiness is longevity. And in modern society, due to the development of science and technology as well as medicine, we are about to reach the centenarian age. In line with this, discussions on voluntary death, such as euthanasia and death with dignity, are also underway. Discussing euthanasia while presupposing a utopia may seem contradictory at first glance. However, some Utopian thinkers emphasize the aspect of "seeking utopia requires euthanasia," and some of the most representative classics of these ideas appear to be Plato's "Republic" and Thomas More's "Utopia." One of the interesting things about these works is the discussion of death, among which today's ‘euthanasia and death with dignity’ or issues related to it are being mentioned. In other words, in the work of depicting the most ideal state, euthanasia spoken in modern society has been dealt with positively. This can be seen as a preemptive position in favor of euthanasia from the perspective of modern society. Based on this premise, this paper is discussed as follows. Firstly, the focus is on a general understanding of the concept of euthanasia, along with a view to favor euthanasia. Next, I will discuss the problems of euthanasia in Plato's Republic and Thomas More's Utopia. Finally, I will compare the similarities and differences between Plato’s and More’s view of voluntary death of human beings according to their different perspectives on utopian state and discuss its meaning. 인간 일반의 최고 관심은 행복 추구일 것이다. 인류는 개개인의 행복을 추구하는 것뿐만이 아니라 사회나 국가 전체, 즉 공동체적 행복을 추구한다. 그리고 그 목표는 모두가 행복한 사회, 그 행복을 넘어 완전한 사회, 다시 말해 가장 이상적인 사회, 즉 유토피아로 향해 있다. 행복의 요소 중 하나는 장수하는 것이라고 할 수 있다. 그리고 현대사회에서는 의학을 비롯한 과학과 기술의 발전에 힘입어 우리는 곧 100세 시대를 앞두고 있다. 그런데 이와 맞물려 안락사나 존엄사 등 자발적 죽음에 대한 논의 역시 활발히 진행되고 있다. 유토피아를 언급하면서 안락사를 논한다는 것은 일견 모순적인 것으로 보일 수도 있다. 그러나 유토피아 사상 중에서 ‘유토피아를 추구하니까 안락사가 필요하다’라는 측면을 강조한 사상가들이 있으며, 이러한 사상을 담은 고전들 중 가장 대표적인 작품은 플라톤의 『국가』와 토마스 모어의 『유토피아』를 뽑을 수 있다. 이 저작들의 내용 중에서 흥미로운 점 중의 하나는 죽음에 대한 논의이며, 그러한 논의 가운데 오늘 날의 ‘안락사와 존엄사’, 혹은 그것과 관련된 문제들이 언급되고 있다는 사실이다. 다시 말해 가장 이상적인 국가를 그리는 저작 안에서 현대 사회에서 말하고 있는 안락사를 긍정적인 관점으로 다루고 있다는 점이다. 이러한 점은 현대사회의 관점에서 볼 때 안락사에 대한 찬성 입장이 선취된 것으로 평가할 수 있을 것이다. 이러한 전제를 바탕으로 본 논문은 다음과 같이 논의된다. 먼저 안락사 개념에 대한 일반적 이해와 더불어 안락사 찬성 견해에 초점을 맞춘다. 그 다음은 플라톤의 『국가』와 토마스 모어의 『유토피아』각각에 나타난 안락사의 문제점에 대해 논의한다. 마지막으로 플라톤과 모어의 상이한 유토피아적 국가관의 차이에 따른 인간의 자발적 죽음에 대한 관점의 차이를 비교하고 그 의미를 논의해 본다.

연명시술의 중단에 관한 법적 연구

조민석(Cho Min-Seok),문하영(Mun Ha Young) 전북대학교 법학연구소 2014 법학연구 Vol.41 No.-

There has been much debate on the issue of withholding life-sustaining medical care for the terminal cancer patients, since the judicial decision of the The Supreme Court for the Kim grandmother. The withholding life-sustaining treatment can be accepted only to “Patient after reaching the stage of irrecoverable death”. This paper is about withholding life-sustaining and Euthanasia. Euthanasia, or voluntary assisted suicide, has been the subject of much moral, religious, philosophical, legal and human rights debate in Korea. At the core of this debate is how to reconcile competing values. For example, the desire of individuals to choose to die with dignity when suffering, and the need to uphold the inherent right to life of every person, as recognised by article 6(1) of the ICCPR(International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights); PART III Article 6(1), Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life. Definitions are followed. Euthanasia: Euthanasia is the intentional killing by act or omission of a dependent human being for his or her alleged benefit. Voluntary euthanasia: When the person who is killed has requested to be killed. Non-voluntary: When the person who is killed made no request and gave no consent. Involuntary euthanasia: When the person who is killed made an expressed wish to the contrary. Assisted suicide: Someone provides an individual with the information, guidance, and means to take his or her own life with the intention that they will be used for this purpose. When it is a doctor who helps another person to kill themselves it is called “physician assisted suicide.” Euthanasia By Action: Intentionally causing a person’s death by performing an action such as by giving a lethal injection. Euthanasia By Omission: Intentionally causing death by not providing necessary and ordinary (usual and customary) care or food and water. In conclusion, we must be wary of those who are too willing to end the lives of the elderly and the ill. If we ever decide that a poor quality of life justifies ending that life, we have taken a step down a slippery slope that places all of us in danger.

자발적인 소극적 안락사와 소위"존엄사"의 구분 가능성

최경석 ( Kyung Suk Choi ) 한국의료윤리학회 2009 한국의료윤리학회지 Vol.12 No.1

The concept of "death with dignity" has received a great deal of attention in South Korea recently. While some believe that death with dignity is different from euthanasia, others maintain that it is a form of voluntary passive euthanasia. Medical futility and autonomy clearly play an important role in the moral justification of death with dignity. This article argues for the necessity of introducing a new criterion of medical futility into the classification of euthanasia, for there may be moral differences between medically futile treatment and basic treatment such as antibiotics, hydration, and nutrition. The patient`s views on what constitutes medical futility may also be relevant. One notion of death with dignity examined in this article is the idea of not interfering with "natural death." This notion of death with dignity is distinct from any form of euthanasia defined as hastening a patient`s death for him/herself. However, as is shown in this article, this notion is impractical due to the vagueness of the concept of "natural death." Thus, this article defends the claim that death with dignity is a form of euthanasia.

畢柳鶯의 『斷食善終』에 나타난 타이완의 단식 존엄사 논의

김의 전남대학교 인문학연구원 2025 가족과 커뮤니티 Vol.0 No.11

이 논문은 비류잉의 저서 단식 존엄사 를 중심으로 타이완에서 논의되고 있는 단식 존엄사(VSED: Voluntary Stopping of Eating and Drinking)의 현실과 의학적, 윤리적, 법률적 문제를 고찰한다. 단식 존엄사는 환자가 자율적으로 섭식과 수분 섭취를 중단해 죽음을 맞이하는 방식으로, 환자의 자기결정권과 인간의 존엄성을 강조하는 죽음의 형태로 주목받고 있다. 타이완은 안녕완화의료조례와 환자자주권리법을 통해 존엄사를 실현할 법적 토대를 마련했지만, 현실에서는 미흡한 점이 많고 오히려 존엄사 선택을 가로막는 요인으로 작용하기도 한다. 이에 타이완의 존엄사 논의는 한국 사회에도 중요한 시사점을 제공한다. 초고령화 사회에 진입한 한국이 고령층의 삶의 질과 자기결정권을 보장하는 방향으로 나아가길 기대한다. This study examines the reality of the Voluntary Stopping of Eating and Drinking(VSED) being discussed in Taiwan, focusing on Bi Liuying’s book, “Fasting Death with Dignit” and its medical, ethical, and legal issues. VSED is a method in which patients voluntarily stop eating and drinking to die, and it is gaining attention as a form of death that emphasizes the patient’s right to self-determination and human dignity. Taiwan has established a legal foundation for the realization of euthanasia through the Palliative Care Ordinance and the Patient Autonomy Act, but in reality, there are many shortcomings and it actually acts as a factor that hinders the choice of euthanasia. Accordingly, the discussion of euthanasia in Taiwan also provides important implications for Korean society. It is expected that Korea, which has entered a super-aging society, will move in the direction of guaranteeing the quality of life and self-determination rights of the elderly.

The Right to Refuse Life-Sustaining Medical Treatment in South Korea: The Case of Ms. Kim

( John Michael Mcguire ) 한국의료윤리학회 2009 한국의료윤리학회지 Vol.12 No.1

In North America and elsewhere there exists a legal and ethical consensus concerning the right of patients to refuse life-sustaining treatment and the right of families or other proxies to make such decisions for patients who are themselves unable to do so. This consensus emerged gradually and through several landmark legal rulings, such as those made in the cases of Karen Ann Quinlan and Nancy Cruzan. In South Korea, on the other hand, there is no consensus on the rights of families to make decisions concerning the refusal of life-sustaining treatment on behalf of incompetent patients and, until recently, there was no legal recognition of a patient`s right to refuse life-sustaining treatment. However, the situation in Korea seems to be changing with the recent court rulings in the case of Ms. Kim, a case which may do for medical practice in Korea what the case of Karen Ann Quinlan did for the practice of medicine in the US. This paper makes a contribution to the muchneeded consensus-building process in Korea by reviewing some of the landmarks cases in the international right-to-die movement, identifying the key legal and ethical lessons from those cases, and then applying those lessons to the case of Ms. Kim in order to evaluate the decisions that have been made in her case so far and to make further recommendations on what else needs to be done.

The Right to Refuse Life-Sustaining Medical Treatment in South Korea: The Case of Ms. Kim

John M. McGuire 한국의료윤리학회 2009 한국의료윤리학회지 Vol.12 No.1

In North America and elsewhere there exists a legal and ethical consensus concerning the right of patients to refuse life-sustaining treatment and the right of families or other proxies to make such decisions for patients who are themselves unable to do so. This consensus emerged gradually and through several landmark legal rulings, such as those made in the cases of Karen Ann Quinlan and Nancy Cruzan. In South Korea, on the other hand, there is no consensus on the rights of families to make decisions concerning the refusal of life-sustaining treatment on behalf of incompetent patients and, until recently, there was no legal recognition of a patient’s right to refuse life-sustaining treatment. However, the situation in Korea seems to be changing with the recent court rulings in the case of Ms. Kim, a case which may do for medical practice in Korea what the case of Karen Ann Quinlan did for the practice of medicine in the US. This paper makes a contribution to the much-needed consensus-building process in Korea by reviewing some of the landmarks cases in the international right-to-die movement, identifying the key legal and ethical lessons from those cases, and then applying those lessons to the case of Ms. Kim in order to evaluate the decisions that have been made in her case so far and to make further recommendations on what else needs to be done.

도덕적 지위와 안락사

김익현 ( Ik Hyun Kim ) 한국철학사상연구회 2006 시대와 철학 Vol.17 No.2

연명치료중단에 관한 형법적 고찰

정진연(Chung Jin-Yeon) 한국법학회 2009 법학연구 Vol.36 No.-

최근 연명치료중단과 관련하여 대법원 판결이 선고되면서, 인간답게 죽을 권리에 대한 관심이 증가하고 있다. 사망의 단계에 접어든 환자에 대하여 단순이 현상태만을 유지시키는 연명치료를 중단하여 자연스러운 사망으로 유도하는 일련의 과정에 대하여, 여러 법률적 쟁점이 도출되고 있다. 이번 판결은 비록 무의미한 연명치료장치제거를 청구한 민사소송이지만, 다수의 형법적 쟁점이 포함된 것이다. 이에 연명치료중단의 의의와 관련하여 기존 안락사, 존엄사와의 관계가 문제되며, 연명치료중단의 형사처벌 가능성과 관련하여 처벌가능성 및 정당화 근거 등이 문제된다. 또한 연명치료중단 과정에서 환자의 동의의 법적 성질을 피해자 승낙으로 보는 경우 피해자 승낙의 유효요건 및 추정적 승낙의 형법적 처리 등이 문제된다. 의료적으로 연명치료를 중단할지 여부를 결정하는 것은 사전적인 판단이지만, 사망의 결과가 나타나고 관련자의 이해가 충돌하여 법적 분쟁으로 확대된 후 사후적 판단은 동일한 기준에 의할 수 없다고 할 것이다. 특히, 민사적 법률관계를 떠나 관계자의 형사책임을 논함에 있어 그 기준은 엄격할 수밖에 없다. 환자 본인인 피해자의 승낙이 아니라 그러한 승낙의 추정을 인정하여 사망이라는 결과에 적법성을 부여하는 추정적 승낙의 인정과정에서 관련자에게 ‘양심에 따른 심사’라는 주관적 정당화요소를 요구하는 것이 필수불가결하다. 형법이론 상 피해자의 승낙에 대하여 보충적 지위에 있는 추정적 승낙이지만, 연명치료중단의 경우에는 오히려 주가 되므로 이에 대한 연구가 계속되어야 할 것이다. Recent Supreme Court ruling on death with dignity has increased the interest in the right to die like a human being. Various legal issues have been raised within the process of guiding a person who has entered into the steps of death to a natural death by cease of medical treatment which has been prolonging such person. Although the current ruling was a civil case petitioning the removal of meaningless life-prolonging medical device, it includes number of criminal law issues. Thereupon, there are several issues including the definition of cease of life-prolong treatmentin relation to the existing voluntary or involuntary euthanasia, the possibility of criminal prosecution and the ground of justification. Furthermore, if a patient's consent to the cease of life-prolong treatment is viewed as consent of a victim then there are issues of what will constitute as the effective requisites for such consent of a victim and the handling of presumptive consent in the viewpoint of criminal law. Although the medical decision to cease the life-prolong treatment is a judgment before-the-fact, the judgment after-the-fact which will be required after the resulting death and related legal disputes between the related parties has been raised, cannot be viewed with equal standard. Especially, outside of the civil legal relationship, the standard must be stricter in the context of criminal liability of the related party. It is inevitable to require a subjective justification element such as 'judgment with conscience' to a related party when recognizing presumptive consent, which places legality to a death by acknowledging a presumptive consent rather than victim's consent by the patient, Despite of the presumptive consent having the supplementary status to the consent of a victim in criminal theory, as presumptive consent will be the main theory in the cases of cease of life-prolong treatments, studies need to be continued in this context.

의사원조자살에 관하여

이상문 ( Sang Mun Lee ) 한국비교형사법학회 2006 비교형사법연구 Vol.8 No.2