민요에 나타난 ‘존엄성’에 대한 인식체계

이옥희 한국구비문학회 2024 口碑文學硏究 Vol.- No.72

Respecting someone requires treating them with “dignity.” In other words, you should avoid treating them in a way that demeans, insults, or expresses contempt. This study investigated how people recognize and respond to dignity through folk songs: people enjoy folk songs based on the idea that dignity is lost when human rights are violated. Also, when communication with family members failed, they felt left out and did not receive favors; instead, when criticized and ridiculed, they felt a failure of dignity. Protecting dignity was so important to them that they showed how they would rather die through the poetic speakers of folk songs. They protested that their dignity was undermined by calling them folk songs and tried to resolve the issue by making it public. Next, we investigated their perceptions and attitudes toward the deceased. In folk songs, human dignity also applies to the dead, highlighting why the person died and why those were the cause must apologize. In particular, funeral songs include, “Who is the deceased? What kind of life did they live? Why did they die? What do they mean to those who remember them? What kind of words do we want to leave behind for them, and what do we want to say to them as they leave the world?” People who enjoyed folk songs also recognized the dignity of animals based on feelings of compassion. Meanwhile, the word “dignity” has always been associated with the word “human being,” and dignity has been recognized as “the essential value of human beings.” However, recently, dignity has been extended to non-human entities, expanding its meaning. Respect for others based on compassion attracts attention, as it is a value we need to live together in the future. Defending dignity is possible by realizing one’s rights and respecting the rights of others. It is emphasized that recognizing dignity based on mutual respect regardless of race, religion, gender, social status, region, or age, abandoning the instrumental perspective of non-human beings such as animals, plants, and artificial intelligence, and cooperating to respect them is needed.

Human Dignity and the Ethics of Human Enhancement

Dónal P. O’MATHÚNA 이화여자대학교 이화인문과학원 2013 탈경계인문학 Vol.6 No.1

Human dignity supports the equal value of all humans and their ethical treatment. While human rights conventions use the term frequently, it is rarely defined. The term dignity is used differently, and two dimensions are described in detail. Inherent dignity is an intrinsic dimension held by all humans and is the basis of equal rights for all humans. Circumstantial dignity is another dimension, but is variable and changeable. This is in mind when circumstances are said to enhance or diminish someone’s dignity. The recent critique of dignity arises in part because of conflation of these two dimensions. Others reject dignity because of its religious connections. Such criticisms will be responded to in defense of dignity. Posthuman and transhuman enhancement also raise questions about the value of dignity because of its roots in humanism. Nick Bostrom defends posthuman dignity while critiquing Leon Kass’s bioconservative position. Bostrom’s argument will be critiqued because of his failure to distinguish between inherent and circumstantial dignity, and his misunderstanding of Kass’s claims. In contrast to the transhumanist enhancement project, inherent dignity points to the givenness and limitations of human nature. This indicates the importance of developing gratitude for human nature and avoiding an endless pursuit of perfection. Such an approach is not antagonistic to medicine and science. Instead, it places priority on improving the circumstantial dignity of all human beings, especially those who live without their basic needs being met. Their inherent dignity places a moral obligation on those with resources to help them. Medicine and science should focus on relieving their needs, not enhancing those who already have most needs met. Justice for all humans based on their inherent dignity is proposed as a significant argument against the ethics of transhuman enhancement.

인간의 존엄성, 그리고 도덕적 권리의 실정법으로의 변형

한스요르크잔트퀼러 ( Hans Jorg Sandkuhler ) 고려대학교 철학연구소 2007 철학연구 Vol.0 No.34

나는 철학자의 주장이라고 하면 어떤 사람들을 놀라게 할지도 모르는 다음과 같은 테제를 옹호할 것이다. 인간의 존엄성을 실정법의 원리, 개념 및 규범으로 개념화시키는 것만이 존엄성의 보장에 의해 보호되어야 하는 것 다시 말해 인간인 모든 이의 자유와 평등에 대한 적절한 이해를 허용한다는 것이다. 나의 테제는 두 가지 전제를 갖는다. 우선 인간들은 그들이 개인들인 한해서 인간들이다. 존엄성은 과거, 현재 및 미래에 존재하는 이 특정한 개인, 이 특정한 인격체로부터 박탈된다. 즉 개인들이 그들의 존엄성을 옹호할 만큼 충분히 강하지 못하고, 바로 이러한 힘을 가진 개인들로 구성되는 사회가 존재하지 않는 경우에 박탈되는 것이다. 두 번째 전제는 첫 번째 전제 다시 말해 인간들은 그들이 개인들인 한해서 인간들이라는 전제와 밀접하게 관련되어 있다. 실정법과 국가는 인간의 존엄성과 인권을 강제로 실행하기 위해 공통적으로 확립된 그러한 권위들이다. 그러므로 인권이 국가보다 우위에 있다. 개인들이 서로에 관해서 소유하고 있는 도덕적 권리들은 국가에 의해 실정법상의 (그 내용상) 동일한 권리들로 변형된다. 인간의 존엄성이 존중되고 보호되어야 한다는 언명은 존엄성의 침해에 기인한다. 존엄성의 개념은 삶의 불확실성에 개입한다. ``존엄성``은 실체적 개념이 아니라 기능적 개념이다. 그 개념은 말, 개념, 규칙, 원리 및 규범들에 의해 조화와 질서를 창조하려고 함으로써 작동한다. 그 개념은 자유가 위험에 처해 있을 때, 모든 역사적 경험에도 불구하고 인간이 궁극적으로 파괴될 수 없다는 확실성에 대한 열망의 표시, 다시 말해 존엄성이 그 자체로는 보호될 수 없고 제도적이고 법적인 보호를 필요로 한다는 표시를 알리는 기능을 갖는다. 나는 코페르니쿠스적 전환을 제안한다. 이제까지 철학자들은 인간의 존엄성이 개별적 사람들에게 존엄성을 부여하는 가능성의 선험적 조건이었다고 가정해 왔다. 단지 이러한 관계의 역전만이 존엄성의 담지자에 대한 적절한 개념을 허용한다. 존엄성의 원리는 목적 자체로서의 인간, 인격체(person)로 정의된 개인의 수준에서 실천적인 작동원리가 된다. 인간의 존엄성은 권리의 기초이자 목표이다. 실정법은 인간의 존엄성을 보호하기 위한 수단이다. 국가 및 국제기구들은 이러한 권리를 유효하게하고 존중하며 보호해야 한다. I will defend a thesis which may surprise some people as the thesis of a philosopher. Only the conceptualization of human dignity as a principle, concept and norm of positive law allows an appropriate understanding of what should be protected by the guarantee of dignity: i.e. the freedom and equality of everyone who is a human being. Firstly: men are men insofar as they are individuals. Dignity is taken away from this particular individual, this particular person -in the past, present and future, as long as individuals are not strong enough to defend their dignity, and as long as there do not exist societies consisting of individuals with precisely this strength. The second premise is closely connected with the first one: i.e. men are men insofar as they are individuals. Positive law and the state are those authorities established in common in order to enforce human dignity and human rights. Therefore, there is a human right to a state. The moral rights that individuals possess with respect to one another are transformed by the state into the very same rights (with regard to their content) of positive law. The statement that human dignity must be respected and protected is due to its violation. The concept of dignity intervenes in the uncertainty of life. ``Dignity`` is not a substantial concept, but a functional concept. It operates by trying to create compatibility and order by means of words, concepts, rules, principles and norms. It has the function of declaring when freedom is in danger, a sign of longing for the certainty that man cannot ultimately be destroyed, in spite of all historical experiences - a sign that dignity cannot protect itself but needs an institutional and legal protection. I suggest a Copernican turn: Up until now philosophies have assumed that the dignity of humanity was the transcendental condition for the possibility of attributing dignity to individual people. Only an inversion of this relation allows an appropriate conception of the bearer of dignity. The principle of dignity becomes a practical and operational principle at the level of man as an end in himself, of the individual defined as a person. Human dignity is the basis and the goal of rights. Positive laws are the means for its protection; states and international organizations must implement, respect and protect these rights.

Human Dignity and the Ethics of Human Enhancement

O’MATHÚNA, Dónal P. 이화여자대학교 이화인문과학원 2013 탈경계인문학 Vol.6 No.1

Human dignity supports the equal value of all humans and their ethical treatment. While human rights conventions use the term frequently, it is rarely defined. The term dignity is used differently, and two dimensions are described in detail. Inherent dignity is an intrinsic dimension held by all humans and is the basis of equal rights for all humans. Circumstantial dignity is another dimension, but is variable and changeable. This is in mind when circumstances are said to enhance or diminish someone’s dignity. The recent critique of dignity arises in part because of conflation of these two dimensions. Others reject dignity because of its religious connections. Such criticisms will be responded to in defense of dignity. Posthuman and transhuman enhancement also raise questions about the value of dignity because of its roots in humanism. Nick Bostrom defends posthuman dignity while critiquing Leon Kass’s bioconservative position. Bostrom’s argument will be critiqued because of his failure to distinguish between inherent and circumstantial dignity, and his misunderstanding of Kass’s claims. In contrast to the transhumanist enhancement project, inherent dignity points to the givenness and limitations of human nature. This indicates the importance of developing gratitude for human nature and avoiding an endless pursuit of perfection. Such an approach is not antagonistic to medicine and science. Instead, it places priority on improving the circumstantial dignity of all human beings, especially those who live without their basic needs being met. Their inherent dignity places a moral obligation on those with resources to help them. Medicine and science should focus on relieving their needs, not enhancing those who already have most needs met. Justice for all humans based on their inherent dignity is proposed as a significant argument against the ethics of transhuman enhancement.

고령 노인의 인간 존엄성 존중 - 자율성 정체성 취약성의 측면에서 -

김도균 ( Kim Dokyun ) 서울대학교 법학연구소 2020 서울대학교 法學 Vol.61 No.4

인간 존엄성에 관한 논의는 인간 존엄성의 토대인 인간 공통의 속성을 찾는 데 주력하지만, 이 글에서는 고령 노인의 인간 존엄성 유지에 주안점을 두고 인간 존엄성의 기반인 속성 및 능력의 보유와 그 실현에 주목할 것이다. 우선, 유의미한 삶을 영위하는 것에 초점을 맞춰서 인간 존엄성의 세 가지 측면과 요소를 ① 자율성/자기결정능력, ② 정체성 형성과 유지, ③ 육체적 존재로서의 인간 공통의 취약성으로 분해하여 설명한다. 그런 후에는 자율성의 요소를 관계적 자율성관의 입장에서 해명하고 관계적 자율성 능력을 보호하고 증진할 여건에 주목하여, 관계적 자율성 능력의 목록을 확장할 것이다. 그리고 고령 노인에 특유한 인간 존엄성 요소로서 취약성을 염두에 두고서 인간의 취약성을 세 차원으로 구분한다. 인간 본래의 존재론적 취약성, 각 개인들 또는 집단이 처한 상황적 맥락에서 생겨난 상황관련적 취약성, 사회적 편견 및 제도적 차별 또는 사회경제적 불평등이나 정치적 억압과 같이 사회전반에 뿌리 깊이 박혀 있고 만연한 사회구조적 부정의에서 기인하는 취약성으로 구분한 후, 인간 존엄성을 강조하게 된 배경조건으로서 취약성을 논할 것이다. 이런 배경하에서 고령 노인에 특유한 인간 존엄성의 문제를 의존성과 취약성의 맥락에서 고찰하여 고령 노인의 인간 존엄성 유지에 장애가 되는 요인들과 인간 존엄성의 증진에 필요한 조건을 제시한다. Why does human dignity matter and what is human dignity? The concept of human dignity as an essentially contested concept has a complex structure, and therefore is difficult to define. Although the lack of a common definition led the different legal systems to give different and conflicting meanings to the concept, courts and citizens have invoked the notion of human dignity in many cases regarding the same-sex couples, patients, prisoners, detainee, asylum seekers, and people wishing to end their lives. Human dignity has a core meaning, which pertains to all human beings to the same extent. That is, human dignity refers to a kind of dignity that we all have just because we are all human beings. The question which this article deals with is: is there a dignity particularly to older people, which requires that special attention be paid to them? To approach and answer the question, i.e. a specific dignity that pertains to older people, we should take the trajectory of human life into account and incorporate this fact into the dignity of older people. Then, an account of the specific dignity of older people should be constructed on the basis of three aspects that human dignity has: personal autonomy and self-determination, mutual relationship and dependence, and vulnerability. Especially, the aspects of dependence and vulnerability have a special significance to the dignity of older people in modern societies that place the highest value on features as independence, competence and productivity. For the protection and promotion of the dignity of older people our legal system should take the dependence and situational vulnerability of older people seriously.

헌법재판소 결정문을 통해서 본 인간존엄의 의미- 존엄개념의 과용과 남용 -

이상수 서강대학교 법학연구소 2019 서강법률논총 Vol.8 No.1

Human dignity has established itself as a core value of international human rights law and most of the constitutional laws in the world. But heated academic controversy is ever increasing over the meanings and the actual roles of human dignity in the legal context. With the controversy in mind, I reviewed how the human dignity in the Korean Constitutional has been understood by the constitutional court. As a methodology, I collected and analyzed all the constitutional decisions from 1989 to 2017 which in anyway invoked human dignity. Findings are as follows. Firstly, The sheer number of cases which invoked human rights is huge. 196 decisions made reference to human dignity more than 3 times and 13 decisions did more than 15 times. Over the years, the number of decisions which referred to human dignity is increasing. These facts suggest that human dignity in the Korean Constitution has strong legal implications and merits academic attention. Secondly, although the constitutional court did not clearly define the meaning of human dignity itself, it nevertheless declared that human dignity is one of the highest constitutional values and applied it to various constitutional cases. In relation with basic rights, the notion of human dignity was mostly used to justify and expand basic rights, but at the same time it was also mobilized as a powerful justification to constrain or nullify basic rights. As a whole, the meaning of human dignity is multi-faceted, ambiguous and even contradictory depending on the issues and judges. Thirdly, the ambiguity and contradiction in the meaning of human dignity leads arguably to the abusive use of human dignity. Some scholar’s concern that human dignity can be a Trojan horse which ultimately destroy the international human rights system or that it can weaken the rule of law by diminishing judicial predictability, has strong relevance in Korean constitutional context too. This article urges us to make deliberate efforts to prevent the inconsistent or abusive use of human dignity by reducing the ambiguity and contradiction in the meaning of human dignity. 오늘날 인간존엄(human dignity)은 국제인권법과 각국 헌법의 핵심가치로 자리 잡았다. 하지만 존엄의 개념과 실제 기능을 둘러싸고 치열한 학술적 논쟁이 전개되고 있다. 본고는 이러한 논쟁을 배경으로 하면서 한국 헌법에서의 존엄은 헌법재판소에서는 어떻게 이해되고 이용되고 있는지를 살펴보았다. 이를 위해 1989년부터 2017년까지 존엄이 사용된 헌재 결정문 전체를 이용하여 한국 헌법에서 존엄의 용례를 분석하였다. 연구결과는 다음과 같이 요약된다. 첫째, 우리나라 헌법재판에서 존엄이 실로 많이 이용되고 있다. 존엄이 3번 이상 언급된 결정문이 196개이고, 15회 이상 거론된 결정문이 13개에 이른다. 시간이 가면서 존엄을 거론한 결정문의 수는 더욱 증가하고 있다. 이는 한국헌법에서도 존엄이 살아있는 법규범으로서 작동한다는 것을 암시한다. 둘째, 헌재는 존엄 자체의 의미에 대한 깊은 분석을 하지 않으면서도, 존엄을 최고의 헌법적 가치라고 인정하고, 이를 다양한 맥락에 적용하였다. 기본권과 의 관계에서, 존엄은 대체로 기본권을 정당화하고 확장하는 역할을 했지만, 동시에 기본권을 무력화시키는 강력한 논거로 이용됐다. 전체적으로 보아 헌재 결정문에 나타난 존엄의 의미는 다양하고 모호하며 모순적이라고 할 수 있다. 셋째, 존엄의 의미가 모호하고 모순적이라는 것은 존엄개념의 남용으로 이어지는 것으로 보인다. 일부 학자들은 존엄이 인권체제를 파괴하는 트로이 목마가 될 수 있고 또 법치주의의 위기를 낳을 수 있다고 우려했거니와, 우리나라 헌재 결정문은 그러한 우려에 근거가 없지 않다는 것을 보인다. 그런 점에서 우리나라 헌법의 운용에서도 존엄 개념의 모호성과 모순성을 극복함으로써 남용을 최소화하고, 존엄의 순기능을 극대화하려는 의식적인 노력이 시급히 요청된다고 하겠다.

기본권 규범구조에서의 ‘인간의 존엄성’의 지위 ― 헌재 2016. 12. 29. 2013헌마142 결정에 대하여 ―

조소영 한국공법학회 2019 공법연구 Vol.48 No.1

우리 헌법 제10조의 ‘인간으로서의 존엄과 가치’가 모든 기본권 보장의 종국적 목적이자 기본이념의 지위를 지닌다는 것에 대해서는 이견이 없었지만, 학자들 중에도 인간의 존엄성 규정이 개별적 기본권성을 갖는다는 해석을 논의하는 입장이 나타났고, 헌법재판소도 2016년 구치소내 과밀수용행위 위헌확인 결정에서 인간의 존엄성을 개별적 기본권으로 다루는 결정을 내린 바 있다. 인간의 존엄성에 대한 이러한 구체적 기본권성의 부여는 헌법학적으로 면밀하게 검토되어야 할 쟁점이라는 점에서, 본 논문은 해당 결정내용을 분석하면서 우리 헌법상의 기본권 규범구조에서의 ‘인간의 존엄성’의 지위에 관하여 검토하였다. 인간의 존엄성 규정의 독자적 기본권성 인정 여부에 대한 학계의 견해는 구분된다. 하나는 인간의 존엄성 보장은 객관적 헌법규범 또는 기본원리로서, 인간의 존엄이 구체적인 기본권의 성격을 갖는다면 공공복리 등의 목적을 위해 제한될 수 있기 때문에 더 이상 절대적 효력을 갖는 헌법원리로 기능할 수 없게 되고, 다른 개별 기본권들과의 관계에서 그 서열관계를 어떻게 매길 것인지의 문제도 발생한다고 하는 입장이다. 반면에 인간 존엄성조항의 법문, 헌법체계 내에서 규정된 위치, 다른 헌법규범과의 연관관계 등을 고려할 때 인간존엄성 조항의 기본권적 성격은 인정되어야 하고, 국민은 최고의 헌법적 가치의 침해에 대해 직접 방어할 수 있는 가능성을 부여받아야 하므로 인간의 존엄성은 헌법소원을 통하여 관철할 수 있는 개인의 기본권으로 보아야 한다는 주장이 있다. 그런데 구체적인 보호영역 설정 가능성 여부, 우리 헌법상의 기본권 규범구조와의 부합성, 기본권 제한 시의 최후적 한계로서의 ‘기본권의 본질적 내용’의 판단기준으로서의 역할 등을 고려할 때, 개별적이고 구체적인 기본권으로서의 인간의 존엄성 지위론은 문제가 있다. 2016년 결정은 교정시설 내 과밀수용이 인간의 존엄과 가치를 침해함을 확인함으로써 국가형벌권 행사의 한계를 밝히고 수형자 등의 인권 신장을 도모하고자 한 의의는 있지만, 헌법재판소는 이 결정에서 왜 다른 유사사건들과는 달리 직접 인간의 존엄성 침해의 문제로 다루었는지, 인간의 존엄성이 우리의 기본권 규범구조 속에서 독자적 기본권성을 갖게 된다면 그 고유의 보호영역이 어떻게 확정될 수 있을 것인지, 제한 가능성을 인정할 것인지 등의 헌법이론적 쟁점들에 대해서 침묵했다는 비판을 면하기 어렵다. There is no great disagreement as to Article 10 of our Constitution that “dignity and value as a human being” is the ultimate goal of guaranteeing all fundamental rights and the status of basic ideologies. However, among scholars, there was a position to discuss the interpretation that human dignity had individual basic rights, and the Constitutional Court also made a decision to treat human dignity as individual basic rights in its 2016 decision. The granting of these specific basic rights to human dignity is an issue that must be scrutinized constitutionally. Academics' opinions on whether human dignity provisions recognize independent basic rights are divided into positive and negative positions. One is that human dignity can no longer function as an absolute constitutional principle because it can be restricted for public welfare, etc.. On the other hand, the position of human dignity provisions should be recognized in consideration of the legislation of human dignity clauses, their positions within the constitutional system, and their relation to other constitutional norms. The dignity of human beings as individual and specific basic rights, considering the possibility of establishing specific protection areas, their conformity to the normative structure of basic rights in our Constitution, and their role as a criterion for the ‘essential content of basic rights’ as the last limit in restricting basic rights... has a theoretical problem. The 2016 decision confirms the limitations of the exercise of national penalties and the promotion of human rights of prisoners by confirming that overcrowding in correctional facilities infringes human dignity and value. However, why the Constitutional Court treats this issue as a direct violation of human dignity, unlike other similar cases, and how its own sphere of protection would be established if human dignity had its own basic rights within our norm structure. It is difficult to avoid criticism of being silent on constitutional issues, such as whether it can be done or admit the possibility of limitation.

인간의 존엄과 그 개념에 대한 재검토

김민배(Kim, Min-Bae) 한국토지공법학회 2020 土地公法硏究 Vol.89 No.-

The concept of human dignity has played an important role in various areas. In particular, the historical lessons learned from totalitarianism have had a great influenc on the Constitution and other countries since the end of World War II. It has greatly contributed to the prevention of cruel acts such as torture of humans and human experiments. Human dignity is also a historical concept in Germany that has been confirmed by historical experiences. It was emphasized that there was no need for further evidence in itself. However, the concept is ambiguous compared to the wide-ranging and often used human dignity. The ambiguity of the concept of human dignity is a target of criticism. It also takes a religious view of the divine nature, which is the basis of human dignity. Recently, advances in science and technology and biomedical science have been developing. It is leading to criticism of human dignity. At the bioethics level, there are also arguments that human dignity is useless. Then, why does traditional interpretations of human dignity conflict in modern society? Human dignity is also linked to birth, life and death. However, the concept of human dignity is ambiguous. The reason is that the human concept is ambiguous. A new interpretation of the concept of dignity emphasizes the individual ego and personality of the inority or the elderly. A new interpretation of human dignity presupposes specific differences and diversity between people. Therefore, they interpret problems that cannot be covered by traditional sense as individual dignity rather than human dignity. New interpretations of the concept of human dignity are emphasized in bioethics or biomedical science. Biomedical is a region of interest in which individual desires, choices and actions are greater than human beings or the whole. It is also related to the development of biomedical science to enable embryos, abortions, gene editing and human cloning through new concepts of dignity. Kant s Categorical Imperative does not prevent this situation from being promoted by biotechnology and biomedical science. Therefore, it is necessary to review various factors, such as uncertainty and imperfections, nature and chance, to complement the dignity of human beings suited to the new times. In this study, I would like to examine the concept and use of human dignity, the futility and usefulness of human dignity, and the necessity of rebuilding human dignity. I want to consider interpreting the human dignity raised in the bioethics. I would also like to explore ways of interpreting human dignity in a traditional way to maintain consistency in the field of biomedical science. 인간 존엄의 개념은 다양한 영역에서 중요한 역할을 해왔다. 특히 전체주의를 경험한 역사적 교훈이 제2차 세계대전이후 각 국가에 헌법 등에 미친 영향은 매우 크다. 인간에 대한 고문이나 인간실험 등 잔혹한 행위를 저지하는 데 크게 기여를 했다. 인간의 존엄성은 역사적 체험으로 뒷받침된 독일의 역사적인 개념이기도 하다. 따라서 인간존엄 그 자체에 또 다른 근거를 필요로 하지 않는 다는 것이 강조되었다. 그러나 인간의 존엄이 광범위하고 자주 사용되는 것에 비해 그 개념이 모호하다. 그 점 때문에 인간의 존엄에 대한 비판이 제기되고 있다. 인간존엄의 근거로 주장되는 천부설을 기독교적 내지는 종교적 시각으로 판단하는 주장도 마찬가지이다. 최근에는 과학기술의 진보와 생명의학이 발전하면서 기존의 인간존엄에 비판과 다른 차원의 문제들이 제기되었다. 일부이지만 생명윤리나 생명의학 차원에서 주장되는 인간존엄의 무용론이 그것이다. 그렇다면 인간존엄에 대한 전통적인 해석이 현대사회에서 충돌하는 이유는 무엇인가. 그것은 인간 존엄의 개념이 다의적이고 광범위하기 때문이다. 특히 인간의 개념과 삶의 복잡성과 연계되어 있다. 인간의 존엄은 탄생과 생존 그리고 죽음과도 모두 관련된다. 존엄개념에 대한 새로운 해석은 여러 차원에서 전개되고 있다. 우선 인간의 특정한 차이나 다양성을 전제로 소수자나 노인들의 개별적인 자아내지 인격을 강조하는 것이다. 따라서 전통적인 감각으로 커버할 수 없었던 문제들을 인간의 존엄보다는 개인의 존엄으로 해석하려는 시도이다. 인간존엄의 개념에 대한 새로운 해석은 생명윤리 또는 생명의학에서도 강조되고 있다. 역사적 경험과 관련된 인류보다는 개인 자신의 욕망, 선택, 행동이 보다 현대의 인간들에게는 더 큰 관심의 대상이다. 생명의학이 새로운 존엄개념을 통해 배아, 낙태, 유전자 편집, 복제인간을 가능하게 하려는 움직임과도 관련되어 있다. 현재의 흐름은 칸트의 정언명법으로도 생명의학이나 과학기술이 추진하는 이러한 상황을 막을 수 없다. 그러므로 원점에서부터 인간에 대한 불확실성과 불완전성, 자연성과 우연성 등의 여러 요소들을 재검토하여 새로운 시대에 맞는 인간의 존엄을 보완할 필요가 있다. 본 연구에서는 인간 존엄의 개념과 용법, 인간존엄을 둘러싼 무용론과 유용론, 그리고 인간 존엄의 재구축의 필요성을 검토하고자 한다. 이를 통해 인간의 존엄이 지닌 역사적 경험, 종교적 위상 그리고 현대사회에서의 중요성을 강조하고자 한다.

Subjectivity Death with Dignity Recognized of Nursing Students

Sunyoung Jang,MeeSuk Wang 보안공학연구지원센터 2016 International Journal of Bio-Science and Bio-Techn Vol.8 No.5

This study was to identify the subjective attitudes on “death with dignity” perceived by nursing students, and to describe the characteristics of each category. Twenty-nine nursing students at H University located in Chungcheongnam Province, Korea were asked to classify 70 statements on “death with dignity.” The collected data was analyzed utilizing QUANL PC program, SPSSWIN 21.0 program. The study concluded that there were 6 types of attitudes from the nursing students towards “death with dignity.” The types of attitudes towards “death with dignity” were “recognizing value in death with dignity,” “inevitability of choosing death with dignity,” “societal regulation of death with dignity,” “death with dignity electivity,” “death with dignity criteria identification” and “preparing for death with dignity.” The results of this study will provide assistance for organizing a “death with dignity” education program for nursing students and establish a value system towards “death with dignity” through categorization of the nursing student attitudes. The findings will also play a crucial role in identifying the attitudes of nurses towards “death with dignity” after students become nurses and start working in various departments, possibly facing patients considering or being considered for end of life choices, including “death with dignity. Lastly this study meaning of death with dignity would be to the development well dying or death with dignity training program nursing student.

공법 : 배아와 인간존엄

방승주 ( Seung Ju Bang ) 한양대학교 법학연구소 2008 법학논총 Vol.25 No.2

As a result of the remarkable developments in biotechnology and biomedicine, it has become an important issue whether an embryo in vitro should be afforded human dignity and the right of life. In Korea, ``The Law of Bioethics and Safety`` was enacted to resolve conflicts between bioethics and biotechnology. Since section 17 of the law holds that supernumerary embryos, which elapsed more than 5 years of preservations-period or fewer than 5 years of this period, if the parents give consent, can be used in research for the treatment of sterility and contraceptive measures, muscle dystrophy, or a rare or incurable disease. Two embryos, their parents and other people (law professor, philosophers, doctors, lawyer etc.) have brought constitutional complaint against the law in the Constitutional Court, for the reason why the section violates their human dignity and the embryos` right of life. In this case, the most important points are whether an embryo could be the subject of human dignity and the right of life on the one hand, and whether sections 16 and 17 of the law violate human dignity and the right of life, as the embryos and other people including their parents articulated, on the other hand. There are many theories about when human dignity and the right of life begin: from the time of fertilization, implantation, building of the brain, development of the human shape, or birth, among other time points. In my opinion, the embryo is the subject of human dignity from the time of fertilization, even before it is implanted in the mother`s womb (fertilization`s theory). Nevertheless, from the perspective of the protect-intensity of human dignity, embryos before implantation could be treated differently than the embryo after implantation. In other words, the human dignity of the embryo before implantation could be restricted by the fundamental rights of the mother like the rights of self-decision (Article 10 Constitution). 배아와 인간존엄 37 The conclusions that follow from the recognition of embryos as the subject of human dignity and the possibility of restricting dignity-protection, which the author formed in this article, are as follows: First, except for the purposes of childbirth, supernumerary embryos in vitro should not be created. Second, nevertheless, in the case of creating supernumerary embryos according to the current law, the woman should not be obligated to implantation, if the woman no longer desires pregnancy. Third, if the woman dies or has no intention for childbirth while the supernumerary embryos are being preserved, the state should search the chances of implantation like a surrogate mother, for the purpose of protecting human dignity and the right of life. If not, the state should preserve the embryos permanently in principle until it finds the possibility of implantation. Fourth, the embryo not only should not be abolished, but also should not be used for research, even if the 5-year period of preservations has passed, lest the creation of embryos for research should be legalized in practice. Fifth, so-called "somatic cell nuclear transfer embryos" are also the subject of human dignity, because they could develop into a human being, on the condition that they would be transplanted into the wombs. Therefore, the creation of somatic cell nuclear transfer embryos should not be permitted, even if they are made for therapeutic purposes. In conclusion, sections 16 and 17 of the law, which prescribe that embryos should be abolished after 5 years or less period, if the parents consent to it, to be preserved, so that they may be used for research, are unconstitutional, because they violate the human dignity clause and the rights of life for embryos in vitro.