Korean Journal of Medical Ethics
The Korean Society for Medical Ethics
Article

죽임(Toten)과 죽게 내버려둠(Sterbenlassen): 인과성의 관점에서 바라본 부작위(Unterlassen)

김문정1,*
Moon-Jeong KIM1,*
1인제대학교 인문의학연구소 전임연구원
1The Institute for Medical Humanities, Inje University
*인제대학교 인문의학연구소 전임연구원. louausms@hanmail.net

ⓒ Copyright 2008 The Korean Society for Medical Ethics. This is an Open-Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Published Online: Jun 30, 2008

ABSTRACT

Whereas active and direct euthanasia is ethically and legally prohibited, passive or indirect euthanasia is, except for special cases, acceptable and even recommendable. The actual difference between an intentional act of killing and an act of withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining treatment can be described most clearly in terms of the causal role of the physician. Active euthanasia represents a new cause of death: the patient’s death results from the physician’s medical intervention (iatrogenic). In the case of passive euthanasia, the cause of death is the patient’s underlying disease. But a physician’s omission’ which allows the patient to die may be a cause of the patient’s death in the sense of an inus-condition, that is, an insufficient but non-redundant part of an unnecessary but sufficient Condition. The inus-condition is responsible for the causation of the occurrence. Both killing and letting die are inus-conditions of minimally sufficient conditions of the patient’s death. The abandonment of withholding or withdrawing of persistence-treatment is thus causally responsible for the fatal outcome.

Keywords: 죽임; 죽게 내버려둠; 안락사; 부작위; 인과적 역할; 비과잉 조건; 의학적인 조치의 포기; 철회; 인과적 책임
Keywords: Killing; Letting die; Euthanasia; Omission; Inus-conditions; Withholding or Withdrawing Life-sustaining treatment