Earticle

초록

영어

Reviewing the subject related with amending the proviso of Article 22 Section 3-1 of the Internal Organs, etc. Transplant Act, as a factor of Internal Organs Extract, Article 22 Section 3 prescribes that the intention should be priority when he(she) expressed his(her) intention to internal organs extract, and the intention of the bereaved families should be considered as a secondary importance. In case he(she) had defined the disposal method of his(her) corporeality before he(she) died, it should be generally accepted that the disposer has a little binding force unless the method would not be against good customs and social order. Basically, the character of the existing act, Article 2 Section 2 of the Internal Organs, etc. Transplant Act, should not be understood simply as a declaratory statement. It should be understood that the intention to disposal of his(her) corporeality and ashes comes out as the right of self-determination when he(she) is alive, and as the personal right of the deceased when he(she) is dead. Moreover, the personal rights of the deceased, the transformed type of the rights of self-determination, are always primary and preferential prior to the intentions of the bereaved families to the corporeality of the deceased. Accordingly, I suppose, the existing act, the proviso of Article 22 Section 3-1 of the Internal Organs, etc. Transplant Act should be rescinded.

목차

Ⅰ. 서론
 Ⅱ. 대법원(전) 2008.11.20. 선고 2007다27670 판결과「장기등 이식에 관한 법률」을 둘러싼 문제점
 Ⅲ. 「장기등 이식에 관한 법률」상의 유족의 범위
 Ⅳ. 장기적출에 대한 동의보조자로서의 유족의 지위
 Ⅴ. 결론
 참고문헌
 ABSTRACT

키워드

저자

• 송영민 [ Song, Young-Min | 원광대학교 법학전문대학원 조교수, 법학박사. ]

참고문헌

발행기관

간행물

표지보기 관심저널 등록

• 간행물명

  의생명과학과 법

• 간기

  반년간

• pISSN

  2092-8599

• eISSN

  2508-5727

• 수록기간

  2009~2025

• 등재여부

  KCI 등재

• 십진분류

  KDC 360 DDC 340