:, :. 1. 1 (induced abortion ) 500,000,000, (, 1990). 1/ 3-1/ 2 (Hen shaw, 1990). 1),. 2 ) 269 14 (, 1996:, 1990). (, 1990).,, (Green, 1993)., 19..,. 270, 3 ). (Dan s, 1992),. 1995,,.. (, 1996).,,,.
,. 2. 1). 2). 3). 3.,.. 1) (, artificial termination ):.. 20 28 500g. (electiv e) (v oluntary ) (, 1991).. 2),. (1991).,.,,....,. 12. 20, 28, 28,.
,..,,,.. RU - 486...,? (Mappes & Zemnaty, 1987).??.. 1.,,.,. 1). ( 14 ). (, 1991) (1) 14 5, (2) 14 3, 4, (3) 14 1. 2). Bebel(1910)d [ ]. 120 1879 1910 50,,.. T orres & F orrest (1988) (1991),, (, ),.. (, 1991: T ietze, 1973). 2.
,.. 1) (con serv ativ e postion ): (the pro- lifers ). = (, 1994) = ( ) (, 1992:, 1992). 2 7.. (, 1990 ), (, 1994),., (, 1992).... =., (Beoody, 1988), Singer (1993). :. :. :.,.,,.,. (slipperey slope argum ent )".,,.. Noonan (1987),,.,
.... = (Singer, 1993)..,.... 2) (liberal position ); (the pro- choicer s )..,.,. (Brody, 1988). T hom son (1971) 9. 4 ). T ooley (1972),.. W arren (1987).,,,, 5 ),.,,,,,.. 3) (m oderate position ) (1)
.. Singer (1993). :. :. :. Singer (1993) W arren (1987)...,,.,,.,,. Singer (1993). (1996) Buckle(1990) ( ) P arfit (1984) 14.,. (2) (Sumner, 1981).. Callahan (1987) (replacement theory )"... x y.,,.,.,..?. Held (1978)
,...,.,....,. (English, 1987: Singer, 1993).... (3) Hare(1975)..,.......(W e should do to others w hat w e are glad w as done t o u s.)" (golden rule).. ( ) ( ).. (glad ).., - -. Hare,.
.,,., ( ),.,.,..,. (4) : Holm grn & Uddenberg (1994),,. Gilligan (1982) (pro- life) (pro- choice) 3,.,..,.,. Gilligan, (1990),,.....,,.. (1990).....,,,
,,,..,. (Hen shaw, 1990),, (Hen shaw, 1986. 1990). 1964 7% 1988 52% 7, 1970-1974 22.5% 1980 39.9%. (, 1992) Hen shaw (1986, 1990) 1984 100 43 35 8. (1991) 1,200 15 655 36%. 2, 1 1 369 (1995), 64.3%. 309 (1992) 66.0%.. T orres & F orrest (1988) 1,900 (1,339 ). (856 ), (790 ) 3. Holm gren & Uddenberg (1994) 128 (82% ), (55% ), (49% ), (38% ), (33% ), (27% ), (11% ). (1991). (18, 62.1% ), (9, 31.1% ), (1, 3.4% ), (1, 3.4% ), (72, 35.8% ), (39, 19.4% ), (34, 16.9% ), (32, 15.9% ), (11, 5.5% ), (7, 3.5% ), (6, 3.0% ). 1992,,,, 1,009,, (21.4% ), (12.0% ), (66.6% ), (23.5% ), (19.9% ), (12.7% ), (10.2% ), (5.1% ), (4.1% ). (72.0% ), (17.1% ),, (6.6% ), (3.8% ).,. Holm grees & Uddenberg (1994) 1/ 3(34% ), 1/ 3(38% ),. 26%. (1995) (59.3% ), 66.6%.
16.7%. 90%. (1991) 216(18.0% ), 214(17.8% ), 770(64% ). (1992) 55 (27% ), 119 (58.3% ), 43 (21.1% ), 23 (11.3% ), 16 (7.8% ), 28 (13.7% ), 24 (11.8% ). (1992) 19.7%, 39.5%, 14.6%, 7.4%., (1992) 66.0%. 10.4%, 6.5%. 5.5%, 1.7%, 0.9%. (1994) 14 8..,,..... 55.6% (44.4% ) (, 1991), (1992) 31.7%, 56.3%, 4.5%. 7.5%,.,,,,,,, (1975, : 1995, ).,, (Adler et. al., 1990). (1995) P ar se,,.. 1.,. (, 1994 ) (1994), (1994),,.,
, Jon sen & T oulmin (1988) 1970 (Arras, 1991). (1994), (1994) (Jon sen & T oulmin, 1988; Jon sen, 1991) Beauchamp & Childress (1994) 1970, ( 1994), (Richardson, 1990; Degrazia, 1992). 1), 2). 3) 4). 5).. 2. 1) : 1996 7 8 23. S.,.. 10, 20 17 14. 14 1, 2 6. 2) : 3.,...,,,,,,,. 3) :,..,. 30-50.. 3. 1) :,, 6.. 2) :.,.
3) :. 4) : 1, 1, 1, 1, 4.. 1. 6. 31 43, 33. 1 7. 1-10. 1 4... 6 (5 ),,. 1.. 1. 4 1. 5, 1. 3. 3. 2. 14 6. 8 6. 6 3. 1) 2) 3).,.. 1) < 1> ( A ) ( 3. 31.. 1 ) 1994 10, 3.. 8 d..
. 1,..,?..,...... < 2> ( B ),.,,...,....,,.,,..,..,...,..,.......... 10. < 3> ( C).. 23 ( 31 ),....,. 3,..(,.).,,,..
( ) :?? ( ) : 1...... 2... 3,.. :. ( ) : Gilligan 3. Gilligan.. A,. A 1. Callahan A. B C. Singer, Haretlr., (Callahan, 1987)". 2) < 4> ( D)..,. 4... 4,. (31 ). ( ) :?
( ) :.. :.. ( ) : D. D.?.. (Held, 1978). Callahan D., D... (1990) D ".. D,,. 3) < 5> ( E ). 16. 20., 43 50 60.. 1,....,, 7.,...,.. < 6> ( F ) 5 1.
.,,... 4,.......(??..,......(31 ) ( ) :? ( ) :.,. :.... ( ) :...,. E F.,,. 3. :.,,.,,.,. 1) :
,,. 2) :,... 1. 1 A,. Holm gren & Uddenberg (1994) Gilligan (1982)...... 1). 2), 3),.... 2. Callahan (1987), Singer (1993) Held(1987). Hard(1975), Callahan (1987),. (1990).,.
.,,.. T ores & F orrest (1988). Holm grn & Uddenberg (1994), (1991), (1992).. (1996).,,...,. 28 14. 28,..... 100..,.,.,. Singer (1993), Callahan (1987). 17 6. (Jon sen & T oulmin. 1988: Jon sen, 1991)
(Richardson, 1990: Degrzia, 1992). 1), 2), 3).,.,....,. (1996) 6 ) 7 ),,.,. 1. 1. 1988-1993, 1988 31, 1989 26, 1990 42, 1991 33, 1992 15, 1993 32, 1988 4, 1989 7, 1991 6, 1992 9, 1993 8. 2. (1991), 49.4%, 25.5%, 25.1%. 3.,,, 2 (1996. 7. 1 ) 4........,.,.
,. 5. : : : : : 6. 7.. 12. 1. (1995).,,. 2. (1996). :,. 3. (1996)., :. 4. (1991)., :. 5. (1995)., 6, :. 6. 14, 135 7. (1992)., 4, :. 8. (1991)., : 9., (1994).,, 24 (2): 190-205 10. (1994). :,,. 11. (1995).,,. 12. (1995).,,. 13., (1994).,, 24 (2) :157-174 14. (1992).,, 7: 34-53. 15. (1992). :,, 7: 54-85. 16. (1994)., :. 17., (1996),, :. 18. (1990). :,,. 19. (1991).,
,. 20. (1994). ( ), :. 21. (1975).,, : 191-198. 22. (1994)., :. 23., (1995)., :. 24. (1991). 30, :. 25. (1995)., :. 26. (1990)., :. 27. 27, 269, 270. 28. A dler, N.F., & W y att, G.E.(1990), P sy ch ological respon ses after abortion, S cien ce. 248: 41-44 29. Arras, J.D.(1991), Getting dow n t o cases : the reviv al of casuistry in bioedthcis, T he Journ al of m edicine and Philosophy, 16: 29-51. 30. Beau cham p, t.l. & Childres s, J.F.(1994), Principles of Biom edical Ethics (4th ed ), N.Y.:Oxford Univ er sity Press. 31. Callahan, D.(1987). Ab ortion decision s : per sonal m orality, in M appes, T.A. & Zemb aty, J.S., ed., S ocial Ethics, New York : M cgraw - Hill Book Com pany, pp. 22-28. 32. Dan s, P.E.(1992), M edical stu dent s an d abortion : Recon cilin g per son al beliefs an d professional roles at one m edical school, A cademic M edicine, 67 (3): 207-211. 33. Degrzia, D.(1992), M oving forw ard in bioethical theory : T heories, case, an d specified prin ciplism, T he Journal of M edicine an d P hilosophy, 17 (5): 511-539. 34. English, J.(1987), Abortion an d the con cept of a per son, in M appes, T.A. & Zem baty, J.S., ed., S ocial Ethics, N ew York : M cgraw - hill Book Com pany, pp. 14-21. 35. Gilligan, C.(1982). In a Different Voice ( :, :, 1994). 36. Green, S.(1993). ( ), :. 37. H eld, V.(1978). A bortion an d rightt t o life, in Bioethics and Hum an Right, Ed. by Banm an, E.L., & Ban dm an, B., ed.(1978), Boston : Liit el, Brow n an d Com pany, pp. 103-108. 38. Hen sh aw, S.K.(1986), In duces ab ortion : A w orldw ide perspectiv e, F am ily Plannim g P er spectiv ex, 18 (6): 250-254. 39. H en shaw, S.K.,(1990). In du ced abortion : A w orld rev iew, 1990, F am ily Planning P er spectiv es, 22(2): 76-89. 40. Jon sen, A.R.(1991). Casuistry as m ethodology in clinical ethics, T heoretical M edicine, 12: 296-307. 41. Jon sen, A.R. & T oulm in, S.(1988). T h e Abu se of Casuistry : A Histry of M oral Reasoning, Berkley : Univ ersity of California Press. 42. M appes, T.,A & Zem baty, J.S., ed.(1987), S ocial Ethics, New York : M cgraw - Hill Book Com pany. 43. N oonan, J., Jr.(1987), An alm ost ab solute v alu e in hist ory, in M appes, T.A. &
Zemb aty, J.S., ed., S ocial Ethics, New York : M cgraw - Hill Book Com pany, pp. 8-13. 44. P en ce, G.E.(1990), Classic Cases in M edical Ethics New York : M v Graw - Hill, Inc. 45. Richardson, H.S.(1990). Specifying norm s as a w ay t o resolv e con crete ethical problem s, Philosophy an d Public Affair s, 19 (4):279-310. 46. S arvis, B. & Rodm an, H.(1973), T he Ab ortion Controv er sy, New York : Colum bu a Uniw, Pres s. 47. T h om son, J.J.(1971). A defen se of abortion, Philosophy & Public Affair s, 1(1): 47-66. 48. T iet ze, C.(1963). S om e fact s about legal abortion, in Hum an F ertility and P opulation P roblem s, Cambrideg, M assachu sett s : S chenkm an Publishin Com pany, IN C., pp.222-274. 49. T orres, A. & F orrest, J.D.(1988), W hy w om an hav e ab ortion?, F am ily Plannin g per spectiv e, 20(4): 169-176. 50. W arren, A.M.(1987). On th e M oral and Leg al St atu s of Abortion, in M appes, T.A. & Zemb aty, J.A., ed., S ocial Ethics, N ew York : M cgraw - Hill Book Com pany, pp.14-21 - A b s t rac t - K ey w ord : In du c e d ab ort ion, n u rs in g et hi c s, In g rat e d c a s e m et h o d E thic al A rg um ant s and Problem s A n aly s is Related to Induce d A bortion Um, Young Rhan Um, Youn g Rh an :Dept, of Nursin g, Colleg e of M edicine, S oon chunhy and Univ Over one million cases of the induced abortion hav e been conducted annually in Kor ea. Am ong those cases, m ost of all w ere illegally done, but this has not been addressed in the literature. While Korean Nur se A ssociation Code of Ethics present s the respect for life as one of the basic ideology, it w as not dealt enough in nursing education. T he purposes of th e study w ere t o activ at e the debat e on th e issues relat ed t o an indu ced abortion ; t o introdu ce th e relat ed ethical theories ; and to seek th e solution of the ethical problem s, w hich w ill ev entually result in est ablishin g the m orality of nur sin g practice. T he ethical theories of an induced abortion hav e traditionally addressed tw o extreme perspectiv es ; the con servativ es who emphasize the sanctity of hum an life and the right of life that w ill nev er ethically allow the killing fetu s ; and the liberalist s w ho in sist the right to choice for w om en to control their body. Since these extreme theories has not been helpful t o
solv e the ethical problem s, the recent trend is leading to the m odified theories both from con serv ative and liberal per spectiv es. T he ex amples of the theories are the potentiality of fetus (Singer, 1993), the obligation of w om en to serve their body to fetu s (Held, 1987), the Replacem ent theory (Callahan, 1987), and the Principle of Caring (Gilligan, 1982). T he study conducted the indepth int erview s with 17 w om en w ho experienced the induced abortion and the 6 cases w ere selected to be analyzed. T he cases w ere analyzed and interpreted by u sing an int egrat ed case m ethod which w as combined of the New Casuisty (J on sen & T oulmin, 1988 ; Jon sen, 1991) and the Specified Principlism (Richardson, 1990 ; Degrazia, 1992). T he result of analy sis rev ealed three types of ethical problem s ; (1) the respon sibility of t aking car e of the baby to be born (2) the fear for the condition of the fetu s, and (3) the choice of induced abortion as the m ethod of birth contr ol. T he finding s also revealed the relat ed ethical principles for variou s situation s ; the principle of caring w as u sed for choosing an induced abortion by the subject s ; the principles of the potentiality of fetu s and the obligation of w om en to serve their body w ere for the con sideration for the life of fetus ; and the principle of replacement w as utilized for the right to choice for w omen. T he ethical prin ciples relat ed t o an in duced abortion introdu ced in the stu dy provided the w ay t o solv e the m oral problem s by applying t o the clinical situ ation s for nur ses. T h e stu dy also rev ealed the pos sibility of m odifyin g the current ethical theories from the method of applying the principles to the various situation in the study. T he modified theories w ould b e m ore u seful t o guide the clinical practice w ith sim ilar ethical problem s.