‘조력존엄사법안’에 대한 입법론적 고찰

This study aims to analyze the main contents of the Assisted Dignified Death Bill proposed for the legalization of physician-assisted suicide (PAS) and evaluate its legislative validity. The bill permits only physician-assisted suicide, excluding active euthanasia, and takes the form of independent legislation separate from the current Life-Sustaining Treatment Decision Act. This legislative form is considered appropriate as it reflects the distinct legal structures between the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment and physician-assisted suicide. The bill's core contents concern the requirements for eligible patients and procedural regulations. Eligibility is limited to terminal patients who experience unendurable suffering and voluntarily apply for assistance. While these criteria are relatively strict compared to legislation in countries such as the United States and the Netherlands, they are broader in scope than the current Life-Sustaining Treatment Decision Act, which limits eligibility to patients in the dying process. Notably, the bill lacks clear criteria for minors and patients with mental disabilities. This study particularly highlights issues with the state-led administrative decision-making structure through the Assisted Dignified Death Review Committee. Unlike most foreign legislation that regulates physician-assisted suicide primarily through doctor-patient relationships, this bill adopts a structure where state institutions intervene preemptively, limiting opportunities for ethical communication between physicians and patients. Additionally, the delegation of specific implementation methods to presidential decrees is identified as problematic. Based on these analyses, this study proposes the following improvements. First, the relationship with “patients in the dying process” under the current Life-Sustaining Treatment Decision Act should be redefined, and objective indicators for assessing suffering should be established. Clear criteria for minors and patients with mental disabilities must also be set. Second, the function of the Assisted Dignified Death Review Committee should be limited to post-implementation supervision, restructuring the decision-making process to center on the doctor-patient relationship. Third, specific methods of physician assistance should be stipulated directly in the law rather than delegated to presidential decrees. Furthermore, procedural requirements such as physicians' duty to explain and provide information about alternative treatments need more detailed specification. These specific issues require fundamental reflection on how our society views and regulates the values of death and life, beyond mere legal technicalities. Therefore, the legislative process necessitates public deliberation that considers diverse voices from the medical community, legal profession, ethicists, and civil society, rationally mediating conflicting values.