인간의 존엄과 가치, 그리고 胚芽 - 생명윤리및안전에관한법률 제1장을 중심으로

박선영(PARK Sun-Young) 한국헌법학회 2007 憲法學硏究 Vol.13 No.1

  Nowadays biotechnology or bioengineering is being rapidly developed offering many possibilities in the life, including human embryonic researches, on the other hand, constitutional approach on the scientific studies, in particular, on the focus of ‘human dignity’ are still ambiguous. This article recognizes that scientific and technological developments have been, and can be, of great benefit to humankind in increasing inter alia life expectancy and improving quality of life, and emphasizes that such developments should always seek to promote the welfare of individuals, families, groups or communities and humankind as a whole in the recognition of the dignity of the human person and the universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms.<BR>  Human embryo is an in vitro fertilized human ovum, with certain rights and protection granted by substantive law, composed of one or more living human cells and human genetic material so unified and organized that it will develop in uterus into an unborn child. Nevertheless the human embryo research raises many bioethics problems and violates the dignity of human being, the Korean Bioethics and Biosafety Law(Law No. 7150, hereafter the Bioethics Law) doesn"t works at all because of the inappropriate aim of the law. The Bioethics Law ought to serve and protect the dignity of human being than any other related laws.<BR>  In this thesis, I attempted to make a study of the Bioethics Law from a viewpoint of human dignity in the constitutional law. With respect to the human dignity, this essay tried to critical analyse of the Chapter I in the Bioethics Law in effect from 2005 allowing cloning of human cells if it is carried out for pure research purposes to find remedies for incurable diseases. The most problematic aspect of the Bioethics Law is that embryos tissue would be allowed to used for research purposes. This article frames human dignity, specially focusing on at first, the concept and the legal status of human embryo as a potential human being, and secondly ‘informed consent’ that are worldwide declared such as N?remberg Code and Helsinki Declaration which stress that human subject should be never measure and voluntary consent is absolutely important. It is no surprise that these international norms for protection of bioethics have been developed and some progress has been achieved, serious dispute of human rights and biosafty.<BR>  Human Dignity in the constitutional law should be the extreme measure of the biotechnological norm and the powerful sanction, because the human embryo is de facto biologically human being, gradually acquiring certain capacities, namely entitled to rights worthy of respect and protection, namely human dignity of embryo. So the constitutional concerns involving the application of technology to humans should be of utmost concern, as the area is extremely complex, but the concept of human dignity should be based upon an acceptance of fundamental and superior values within the bioethics.

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.

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.

배아연구와 인간존엄

최민영 ( Min Young Choi ) 안암법학회 2010 안암 법학 Vol.0 No.32

Before bioethics concerning embryo research began to be discussed, the concrete content of the human dignity has not been so vigorously examined although it is now regarded as one of the main issues in bioethics. Anyone who has opinions about embryo research-whether he argues for or against it-argues on the basis of human dignity. On the other hand, the forms and the degree of embryo protection varies, even if the embryo is protected with the argument of the same human dignity. From these reasons, some questions are raised as follows: whether or not there are universal conceptions of human dignity that anyone can agree with; even so, whether or not there are another factors of human dignity that are able to change according to the community and its culture. To find the answer to above questions, this article has the following structure. Firstly, Kant`s End-in-Itself Formula and Durig`s Objekt Formula that have been used as the arguments against embryo research are newly re-interpreted. Nevertheless, it is insisted that these formulas can be still employed for the prohibition of embryo research. After that, diverse arguments of human dignity are introduced that have a different content according to each theory. In conclusion, several fundamental conceptions of human dignity are suggested, which are quite persuasive despite the diversity of the arguments. In the last chapter, it is discussed if an embryo can be an bearer of human dignity according to the Constitution. At last, it is discussed that changeable factors in a human dignity exist, by showing how differently regulation policies of each country take in practice-particularly in South Korea and Germany-although they have the same concept of legal interest of human dignity.

배아연구와 인간의 존엄과 가치 : 헌재 2010.5.27. 선고, 2005헌마346 전원재판부 결정에 대한 검토

서종희 원광대학교 법학연구소 2011 圓光法學 Vol.27 No.1

One of the understanding the latest issues in bioethics is stem cell research used embryos, which is being discussed intensely in society from all corners of the earth. Embryos are used in various techniques of assisted reproductive technology, such as in vitro fertilization and embryo donation. They may be subject to embryo cryopreservation for later use if IVF procedures have resulted in more embryos than is currently needed. Some aspects, e.g. selective reduction in the beginning of pregnancy have triggered a moral debate, because prenatal diagnosis or preimplantation diagnosis involves testing embryos for diseases or conditions. At the same time, human embryos are being researched to determine their use in treating diseases. Stem cell research, reproductive cloning, and germline engineering are all currently being explored. The morality of this research is also debated because an embryo is commonly sacrificed. That is to say, this research cannot be divorced from ethical problems since it requires the destruction of eggs of fertilized eggs. Lively debates have been held over which should be more respected, freedom of research or human dignity(the right to life of embryo). Some insist that a human embryo can't have the right to life and human dignity since it is not considered viable organism, because it cannot survive outside the uterus. Others say that though embryo has the right to life or the human dignity, the human dignity and embryo research are compatible. Recently, many nations said “yes” to human embryonic stem cell research, signing an executive order to permit funding for the research in the mame of achieving health and life of humankind. However human dignity and mankind’'s diversity attacked by an indiscreet research which is such an important characteristic of the ‘'human status’' would become meaningless, that is, it is a threat to human existence. After all, though we allow to do research embryo, we should control the capacity of abuse of embryo research for human dignity. Also we must always be careful of violating of human dignity in that there is still eugenical discrimination by embryo research through the creation of human iPS (induced Pluripotent Stem cells) and artificial abortion in use of PGD(preimplatation genetic diagnosis).

배아연구에서 나타나는 인간존엄의 보편성과 특수성 - 생명윤리안전법을 중심으로 -

최민영 한국법철학회 2016 법철학연구 Vol.19 No.3

In this article, the universal human dignity and the particular human dignity are discussed. There are two factors of human dignity, not only invariable aspect as we accept generally but also variable aspect depending on every culture, religion and history. These conceptions seem too abstract. So the two function of human dignity by analyzing the Bioethics and Safety Act and the Hwang Scandal is discussed. First of all, the two different purposes in Bioethics and Safety Act are mentioned. Then it is reviewed if the two purposes are not contradictory. And it is suggested that we can understand its two factors in an another way, namely universality and particularity of human dignity. Two purposes in the Act can coexist in this new way of understanding. Based on this suggestion, the Bioethics and Safety Act and the Hwang Scandal are analyzed in order to find our particular human dignity. In conclusion, they could not reflect Korean particular life culture and human dignity. However, the amended Act and the strengthened Institutional Bioethics Review Board after the Hwang Scandal have the possibility to form our particular life culture and human dignity. 본 논문은 인간존엄을 크게 두 측면으로 구분하였다: 우리가 일반적으로 수용하는 불변의 요소들을 반영하는 보편적인 인간존엄과 개개의 문화, 종교, 역사에 따라 가변적일 수 있는 특수한 인간존엄. 그리고 이러한 구분이 한국의 생명윤리안전법과 황우석 사태를 분석하는 데 유용한 틀이 될 수 있으리란 전제 하에 논의를 시작하였다. 하지만, 황우석 사태는 이러한 틀로 설명하기에는 극히 혼란스러운 측면이 존재한다. 이 사건의 특수성은 논문조작이 아니라 한국사회의 남달랐던 대응방식에 있다. 하지만, 이 특이한 대응방식을 특수한 인간존엄을 형성하는 데 기반이 되는 한국의 생명문화라고 볼 수는 없다. 그럼에도 불구하고, 생명윤리안전법에서 제시하고 있는 두 개의 입법목적, 배아의 이중적인 정의방식, 국가생명윤리심의위원회를 통한 심의와 기관위원회를 통한 심의·조사·감독 등의 규정은 최근 생명윤리 논쟁에서 제시되고 있는 권한으로서 인간존엄 논거와 제한으로서 인간존엄 논거가 공존가능하다는 것을 보여주는 규제방식으로서 의미를 가진다. 여기서 제한으로서 인간존엄 개념이 한국 특유의 인간존엄으로서 적절한 자리를 잡을 수 있으려면, 무엇보다도 생명윤리안전법에서 규정하고 있는 기관생명윤리위원회가 실질적으로 활성화될 수 있어야 한다. 개개 기관생명윤리위원회의 충실한 운영이야말로 한국의 생명문화와 인간존엄의 지역적 특수성을 건전하게 형성해 나갈 수 있는 단초가 될 것이다.

배아연구와 인간의 존엄과 가치 - 헌재 2010.5.27. 선고, 2005헌마346 전원재판부 결정에 대한 검토 -

서종희 원광대학교 법학연구소 2011 法學硏究 Vol.27 No.1

One of the understanding the latest issues in bioethics is stem cell research used embryos, which is being discussed intensely in society from all corners of the earth. Embryos are used in various techniques of assisted reproductive technology, such as in vitro fertilization and embryo donation. They may be subject to embryo cryopreservation for later use if IVF procedures have resulted in more embryos than is currently needed. Some aspects, e.g. selective reduction in the beginning of pregnancy have triggered a moral debate, because prenatal diagnosis or preimplantation diagnosis involves testing embryos for diseases or conditions. At the same time, human embryos are being researched to determine their use in treating diseases. Stem cell research, reproductive cloning, and germline engineering are all currently being explored. The morality of this research is also debated because an embryo is commonly sacrificed. That is to say, this research cannot be divorced from ethical problems since it requires the destruction of eggs of fertilized eggs. Lively debates have been held over which should be more respected, freedom of research or human dignity(the right to life of embryo). Some insist that a human embryo can't have the right to life and human dignity since it is not considered viable organism, because it cannot survive outside the uterus. Others say that though embryo has the right to life or the human dignity, the human dignity and embryo research are compatible. Recently, many nations said “yes” to human embryonic stem cell research, signing an executive order to permit funding for the research in the mame of achieving health and life of humankind. However human dignity and mankind’'s diversity attacked by an indiscreet research which is such an important characteristic of the ‘'human status’' would become meaningless, that is, it is a threat to human existence. After all, though we allow to do research embryo, we should control the capacity of abuse of embryo research for human dignity. Also we must always be careful of violating of human dignity in that there is still eugenical discrimination by embryo research through the creation of human iPS (induced Pluripotent Stem cells) and artificial abortion in use of PGD(preimplatation genetic diagnosis).

비트겐슈타인의 확실한 것들과 인간 존엄 및 인간 생명 존중

최경석(Kyungsuk Choi) 가톨릭대학교(성심교정) 인간학연구소 2014 인간연구 Vol.0 No.26

이 논문은 생명윤리학이 체계적 이론이나 담론 방식을 아직 뚜렷하게 형성하지는 못하였지만, 생명윤리 담론에 지배적인 영향을 미치는 가치나 규범들이 존재한다고 보며, 이런 것들 중 인간 존엄이란 가치와 인간 생명 존중이란 규범에 주목하고 있다. 그러나 인간 존엄은 이 개념의 네 가지 원천으로 인해 상이하거나 상반되는 결론을 지지하는 논거로 사용되며, 인간 생명 존중도 인간 존엄과 마찬가지로 애매성이나 모호성의 문제점을 지니고 있다. 따라서 생명윤리적 담론에서 인간 존엄이나 인간 생명 존중에 대한 호소는 좀 더 분석되어 보다 구체적인 논거가 무엇인지 확인될 필요가 있으며, 논증 구성에 있어서도 인간 존엄과 인간 생명 존중보다 더 구체적인 논거를 제시할 필요가 있다. 하지만 이러한 문제점에도 불구하고 인간 존엄과 인간 생명 존중은 도덕 체계를 구성하는 가치나 규범들을 대변하는 것으로서 현대를 사는 우리들의 삶 속에 이미 전제된 개념이고 실천의 기초이다. 비트겐슈타인은 참과 거짓의 판별 대상인 명제도 아니고 정당화 근거가 제시될 수 있는 것도 아니지만 우리 행위의 기초가 되는 경험적인 확실한 것들이 존재함에 주목하였다. 경험적인 확신한 것들과 마찬가지로, 윤리의 영역에서도 참과 거짓의 판별 대상인 명제는 아니지만 그리고 정당화의 대상도 아니지만, 우리들의 삶과 실천의 기초를 이루며 도덕 체계를 구성하고 있는 도덕적인 확실한 것들이 존재한다. 인간 존엄과 인간 생명 존중 역시 이러한 도덕적인 확실한 것들 중 하나로 이해될 수 있다. There are no systematic theories on or methods of discourse in bioethics. However, there are some values and norms that have influenced bioethical discourse. Among them, this paper pays attention to human dignity and respect for human life. However, human dignity has been often appealed to as a ground to support different or conflicting conclusions because of its four different sources. Respect for human life, like human dignity, suffers from ambiguity and vagueness. Thus, appeals to human dignity or respect for human life in bioethical discourse must be analyzed in detail, and more concrete grounds must be identified. In constructing arguments, more concrete grounds than human dignity or respect for human life must be presented. Despite these difficulties, human dignity and respect for human life are foundations of our practice, as well as concepts presupposed in our life, representing values or norms that constitute our moral system. Just as there are empirical certainties that Wittgenstein presents, there may be moral certainties, which are not propositions holding truth or falsity, existing outside the range of judgments requiring justification, forming foundations for our lives and practices, and constructing our moral system. Human dignity and respect for human life can be considered to be moral certainties.

생명의 신성함에 대한 논쟁과 법적 과제 : 헬가 쿠세의 이론을 중심으로

김민배(Kim, Min-Bae) 한국토지공법학회 2020 土地公法硏究 Vol.91 No.-

생명의학이 발전하면서 인간의 생명을 둘러싸고 과거에 경험하지 못했던 여러 가지 문제들이 나타나고 있다. 인간의 탄생과 생존 그리고 죽음에 이르기까지 종교적 원리와 현실의 이해관계가 대립하고 있다. 즉, 배아, 임신중절, 장기이식, 뇌사 등을 둘러싸고 생명의 신성함이나 인간의 존엄과 가치가 충돌하고 있다. 미국에서는 생명의 신성함(Sanctity of Life)이 낙태와 안락사에 대한 격렬한 논쟁과정에서 이념적 역할을 했다. 생명의 신성함이 죄 없는 인간을 죽이는 것에 대한 금지의 논거로 제시되었다. 이에 반해 생명의 신성함을 비판하면서 생명의 질과 공리주의를 주장하는 논거들이 등장하였다. 돌이켜 보면 종교적 차원에서 볼 때 생명의 신성함이나 인간의 존엄은 오랜 역사적 전통을 지닌 개념이다. 그러나 생명의학이 발전하면서 생명의 신성함과 인간의 존엄에 대한 개념과 관계들을 재정립해야 할 필요성이 제기되고 있다. 생명의 신성함과 인간의 존엄 그리고 생명의 질 등을 어떻게 설정할 것인가 하는 점이 쟁점이 되고 있다. 인간의 생명을 직접적으로 결정해야 하는 의료현장에서 어떤 판단기준에 기초하여 환자를 치료해야 하는가. 혹은 치료를 중지해야 하는가. 일정한 상황에서 선택적 결정을 내릴 때 종교적 차원에서 인간생명의 신성함을 우선할 것인가. 아니면 생명의 질을 고려하여 생명의 신성함에 반하는 결정을 할 것인가. 현실적 문제해결을 위한 해법을 요구받고 있다.. 본 연구에서는 기독교의 전통적인 생명 문제와 윤리의 기반인 생명의 신성함에 대해 검토하고자 한다. 성경에서는 생명의 신성함의 기원을 어떻게 설명하는가. 기독교의 생명에 대한 이해를 통해 인간존엄의 바탕을 이루고 있는 생명의 신성함을 살펴보고자 한다. 한편 기독교적인 생명윤리 원칙을 무의미하다거나 부인하면서 새로운 윤리 원칙을 제창한 쿠세(Kuhse, H.)의 주장을 검토하고자 한다. 쿠세는 인간의 생명의 가치를 뒷받침하는 종교와 결별하고, 의식능력의 유무에 따라 결정해야 한다는 새로운 생명윤리를 주장하고 있다. 본 연구에서는 쿠세의 주장을 분석함과 동시에 전통적인 생명의 신성함의 의미를 재검토하고자 한다. 그렇다면 최근 급속히 진보하는 생명의학의 발전에 따라 기독교의 전통적 생명윤리 내지 생명의 신성함은 더 이상 존재할 가치가 없는가. 쿠세나 싱어(Singer, P.)가 주장하는 생명의 질이나 공리주의와의 공존은 가능한가. 서로 다른 이해에 기초한 주장들이 생명의 신성함과 관련하여 어떠한 법적 문제를 야기 시키고 있는가. 인간의 존엄의 기반이 되는 생명의 신성함은 침해당하거나 포기할 수 없다. 생명의 신성함의 절대성을 주장하는 입장에서는 악용을 우려하고 있다. 그러나 생명에 대한 가치관의 변화와 의학의 발전은 신성함의 예외를 요구하고 있다. 그것을 어떻게 설정할 것인가. 그 출발은 생명의 신성함과 생명의 질이 제기하는 논거들에서 시작해야 한다. 그리고 인간의 생명에 대한 판단 기준은 법률로 정립될 수 밖에 없다. 중요한 것은 모두가 받아들일 수 있는 법률의 정당화의 논거와 기준을 어떻게 마련할 것인가 하는 점이다. 본 연구에서는 향후 그러한 대안의 마련을 위한 기초적 논거와 이론 등을 제시하는데 연구의 주된 목적이 있다. With the recent development of biomedical science, various problems have emerged surrounding human life. From the birth, survival and death of man, religious principles and human interests are sharply divided. In other words, the sanctity of life or human dignity is in conflict over embryos, abortions, organ transplants and brain death. The sanctity of life also played an ideological role in the debate over abortion and euthanasia in the United States. The sanctity of life was presented as the rationale for the prohibition against killing innocent humans. On the other hand, Kuhse H. and Singer P. criticized the sanctity of life and advocated the quality of life and utilitarianism. On the religious level, the sanctity of life or human dignity is a concept with a long historical tradition. However, with the development of biomedical science, it is necessary to redefine the sanctity of life and human dignity. The need to redefine the concepts and relationships is being raised. That is, how to reset the interrelationships of the sanctity of life, human dignity, quality of life, etc. Doctors directly determine human life in the medical field. Based on what criteria of judgment should the patient be treated? Should we stop? When making an optional decision under certain circumstances, will we prioritize the sanctity of human life on a religious level? Or will you make a decision against the sanctity of life in consideration of the quality of life? Realistically, a solution is needed to solve the problem solving the problem. In this study, I’d like to examine the sanctity of life, the basis of the traditional life ethics of Christianity. How does the Bible explain the origin of the sanctity of life? Through an understanding of Christian on the sanctity of human life, I’d like to examine the sanctity of life which is the basis of human dignity. And criticizing Christian bioethics principles, I’d like to review Kuhse s claim to advocate quality of life and utilitarianism. Kuhse insists on a new life ethic that must be determined by the presence or absence of human consciousness. In this study, I’d like to analyze Kuhse s arguments in more detail, while at the same time reviewing the meaning of the traditional sanctity of life. Then, as Kuhse claims, with the recent rapid development of biomedical science, is the traditional bioethics of Christianity and the sanctity of life no longer worthy of existence? Is the quality of life, utilitarianism and the sanctity of life possible for harmony cooperation? What legal problems do arguments based on different interests cause with respect to the sanctity of life? Under any circumstances, we cannot give up human dignity based on the sanctity of life. But how to set an exception to the sanctity of life. It is necessary to examine the quality of life and the arguments raised by utilitarianism. After all, the standard of judgment on human life must be established by law. What s important is how to come up with justification and standards that everyone can accept. In this study, I have the main purpose of the study in presenting basic arguments and theories for the preparation of such alternatives in the future.

人間胚芽複製의 問題點과 解決方案

서계원(Suh Kye Won) 한국생명윤리학회 2005 생명윤리 Vol.6 No.1

Few sciences have held out such therapeutic promise and corresponding stirred so much controversy in countries throughout the world as the developing science surrounding human embryonic stem cells. Since the first reported development of several lines of human embryonic stem cells in 1998, many governments around the world have attempted to address the thorny ethical issues raised by human embryonic stem cell research by the passage of laws. Stem cells are the precursor cells from which all cells that compose the human body are derived. If used right, stem cells can contribute in a big way to treatment of incurable diseases caused by cell damage. Examples include cerebral nerve ailments such as brain tumors and dementia, motor disturbances such as arthritis, diabetes, and heart disease. Embryonic stem cells have been touted for their greater potential to develop cures for terminal diseases than adult stem cells, although no tangible success has been reported. In fact, from an ethical and anthropological standpoint, so-called therapeutic cloning, creating human embryos with the intention of destroying them, even if undertaken with the goal of possibly helping sick patients in the future, seems very clearly incompatible with respect for the dignity of human being, making one human life nothing more than the instrument of another. "The Law on Bioethics and Biosafety(the Bioethics Law)" passed December 29 of 2003, prohibits the cloning of human embryos because it can lead to the cloning of humans. But it does allow for cloning when part of research into the treatment of incurable diseases. According to the law, infertility clinics are able to use remaining embryos from external fertilization operations, which have been frozen and stored for more than five years, for research purposes, when they have received informed consent from couples of original owner. The bioethics law took effect on January 1 of 2005, allowing cloning of human cells if it is carried out for pure research purposes to find remedies for incurable diseases. "The National Bioethics Committee" is supposed to determine the exact range of permissibility, to extent the research should be allowed. The most problematic aspect of the law is that embryos tissue will be allowed to used for research purposes. As embryos are recognized as life, it may be against the spirit of the Constitution regarding respect for human dignity and life to use human embryos for research. Currently one of the issues in the law is whether to enact legislation of a comprehensive bioethics regulation or to enact at least individual acts covering issue by issue. It needs to lead to an active discussion of all the ethical and legal points of contention. This article first differentiates human embryonic stem cells from other types of stem cells and frames the ethical and legal controversy surrounding human embryonic stem cell research, then surveys laws governing human embryonic stem cell research in various scientifically advanced countries located throughout Europe, USA, Japan and Korea and proposes the direction for the desirable amendment of the existing Bioethics Law in Korea, specially focusing on human embryonic stem cell research. The subject of human embryonic cloning can be best addressed by a juridical instrument, since the rule of law is essential to the promotion and protection of human life. It is by the rule of law, based on right reason, that societies can properly regulate whatever appears to challenge our fundamental notions of human life and dignity.