의사조력 자율죽음 법제화 원칙 = Principles for Legislating Physician-Assisted Autonomous Dying

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

In a reality where the right to self-determination regarding the suspension of life-sustaining treatment, understood as the meaning of the right to refuse treatment, is not sufficiently realized, there is an increasing demand for the right to self-determination regarding the death of life that is alive in extreme pain but is not actually alive. Today, we are required to set a framework for legal discipline regarding the right to die while imposing legal discipline to include all areas of life into the realm of the law. The key dilemma of the right to die is how to resolve the tension between the state's obligation to protect life and the individual's right to self-determination. Therefore, this study examined the concept of modern self-determination rights, character and subject's ability and responsibility standards, limitations and limitations, and whether the concept of modern self-determination rights includes the right to self-death. Modern self-determination rights only value the reason of the subject in the decision-making process, neglecting the psychological and emotional emotional state of the subject. These reason-centered decisions often risk leading to inhumane or mechanical approaches. The time when humans can make the most rational judgment is when reason and emotion are in balance. For rational judgment of emotionally incomplete individuals, individual autonomy capabilities must be enhanced. Therefore, in this study, a new definition of “self-help autonomous death” was proposed as a complementary concept of self-determination that embodies “autonomous communitarian self” by applying Martha Nussbaum's competency theory that emphasizes the core competencies of the community to actually lead one's life.
Additionally, Jürgen Habermas conversation-oriented communication procedure model was proposed as a way to realize the right to self-determination of death and to clarify the scope of the subject's right to choose communicative freedom for autonomous death rather than the right to dispose of his or her own life. This communicative self-death offers a new balance point in resolving the tension between the existing obligation to protect national life and the right to individual self-determination with community responsibility. In this way, the role and disapproval rights of expert doctors were proposed so that self-determination could be realized not as an individual's right to die freely but as a combination of social support and community responsibility.