지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
논문 기본 정보
- 자료유형
- 학술저널
- 저자정보
- 발행연도
- 2004.8
- 수록면
- 151 - 184 (34page)
이용수
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
Etymologically, euthanasia means easy or gentle death. One of the most widely discussed issues in the contemporary bioethics is euthanasia. Euthanasia is the administration of a lethal agent by another person to a patient for the purpose of relieving the patient intolerable and incurable suffering. Death with dignity is the model of voluntary and passive euthanasia. Voluntary euthanasia means that the action is undertaken at the request of the patient, and should be distinguished from nonvoluntary euthanasia where the patient has not made or is not capable of making such a request. Involuntary euthanasia is the action performed against the patient’s wishes. Passive euthanasia involves the withdrawal of medical technologies in order to allow the underlying disease process to take its natural course. Passive euthanasia or death with dignity is typically contrasted with active euthanasia. Active euthanasia refers to the direct killing of the patient.
The distinction between active and passive euthanasia is thought to be crucial for medical ethics. The idea is that is permissible, at least in some cases, to withhold treatment and allow a patient to die, but it is never permissible to take any direct action designed to kill the patient. There is an important moral difference between active and passive euthanasia is that people think killing someone is morally worse than letting someone die. But to investigate this issue, two cases may be considered that are exactly alike except that one involves killing whereas the other involves letting someone die.
There are some needs of permitting ‘death with dignity’ that are now well accepted in medicine and law. Many factors have combined to create this more reasonable approach to ‘death with dignity’ ; the recognition that what is morally required ought to be, at the least, legally permitted; a widespread concern that the request for right to die come from a competent patient and the request is entirely voluntary without any coercion or incentive. In order to fully articulate all of the principles guiding the appropriate adopting of ‘death with dignity’, first there ought to be some changes of legal and moral acknowledge of good death and the patient’s right to die. At least where a well informed competent patient who is terminally ill and in intractable pain thoughtfully and repeatedly voluntary request medical intervention to end her life, medicine and law ought to allow for that aid or medical withdrawing. Medicine and law would agreed that a competent patient has a liberty interest in avoiding unwanted medical treatment. In deed next study would be focused at the formal and legal guidelines and of concrete condition of ‘death with dignity’.
The distinction between active and passive euthanasia is thought to be crucial for medical ethics. The idea is that is permissible, at least in some cases, to withhold treatment and allow a patient to die, but it is never permissible to take any direct action designed to kill the patient. There is an important moral difference between active and passive euthanasia is that people think killing someone is morally worse than letting someone die. But to investigate this issue, two cases may be considered that are exactly alike except that one involves killing whereas the other involves letting someone die.
There are some needs of permitting ‘death with dignity’ that are now well accepted in medicine and law. Many factors have combined to create this more reasonable approach to ‘death with dignity’ ; the recognition that what is morally required ought to be, at the least, legally permitted; a widespread concern that the request for right to die come from a competent patient and the request is entirely voluntary without any coercion or incentive. In order to fully articulate all of the principles guiding the appropriate adopting of ‘death with dignity’, first there ought to be some changes of legal and moral acknowledge of good death and the patient’s right to die. At least where a well informed competent patient who is terminally ill and in intractable pain thoughtfully and repeatedly voluntary request medical intervention to end her life, medicine and law ought to allow for that aid or medical withdrawing. Medicine and law would agreed that a competent patient has a liberty interest in avoiding unwanted medical treatment. In deed next study would be focused at the formal and legal guidelines and of concrete condition of ‘death with dignity’.
목차
Ⅰ. 서설
Ⅱ. 尊嚴死에 대한 개념정의
Ⅲ. 존엄사에서의 중요한 요소들
Ⅳ. 미국에서의 존엄사 및 의사조력자살과 관련된 사례와 법원의 결정
Ⅴ. 네덜란드와 미국의 尊嚴死 및 醫師助力自殺에 관한 입법
Ⅵ. 우리나라의 안락사, 치료중단에 대한 인식도 조사
Ⅶ. 결론
참고문헌 (1)
참고문헌 신청
함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
종교와 자살할 권리에 대한 태도가 존엄사에 미치는 영향
한국사회학회 사회학대회 논문집
2017 .12
-
존엄사에 관한 최근의 논의와 형법적 문제점
경찰학논총
2007 .01
-
존엄사에 관한 고찰
법학연구
2010 .02
-
존엄사 관련 법안에 대한 검토
법이론실무연구
2016 .04
-
치료거부권, 죽을 권리 및 존엄사에 대한 재검토 : 헌법적 관점에서
공법학연구
2009 .05
-
미국 주 형법상 자살관여행위 규제에 관한 입장과 그 시사점 : 이른바 존엄사를 중심으로
강원법학
2014 .02
-
존엄사의 법제화와 완화의료 : 프랑스 레오네티법 개정 논의를 중심으로
법학논총
2015 .07
-
존엄사에 관한 헌법적 검토
원광법학
2010 .01
-
죽음에 관한 자기결정권과 존엄사
미국헌법연구
2013 .04
-
의사조력자살에 대한 고찰
홍익법학
2014 .01
-
尊厳死を通して見た現代学生の死生観 : 尊厳死のアンケートを通して
동북아시아문화학회 국제학술대회 발표자료집
2008 .11
-
의사조력자살의 허용을 위한 법정책적 고찰
법과 정책연구
2018 .01
-
조력자살과 형법 -안락사의 일 유형으로서의 조력자살을 중심으로 -
법과 정책연구
2011 .01
-
형법에 있어서 생명의 보호
법학연구
2013 .12
-
존엄사 판단의 기초로서 자연과 목적
법철학연구
2010 .08
-
유언
중등우리교육
1997 .01
-
유언
초등우리교육
1997 .01
-
안락사의 허용성에 대한 비교법적 고찰- 미국, 네덜란드, 독일, 일본을 중심으로 -
형사법연구
2004 .01
-
消極的 安樂死의 許容與否에 대한 小考
저스티스
2002 .02
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0