Is It Time to Put the Euthanasia Issue to Rest?

The rejection of a recent application by a couple in east Chinas Anhui Province to have their brain-damaged one-yearold son euthanized has reignited debates concerning the practice in question. The boy， Xiong Junyi， suffered severe head injuries after being accidentally dragged onto a conveyer belt last December and is now on life support， unable to breathe unaided. According to Anhui Provincial Childrens Hospital， which is in charge of the boys treatment， his recovery is highly unlikely as he suffered hypoxia， with his brain being deprived of oxygen from either his circulatory or respiratory systems for eight minutes. Generally speaking， over four minutes of exposure to such conditions causes irreversible brain damage.

To end his suffering， the boys parents applied for euthanasia to be carried out in their sons case. The hospital， however， rejected， saying it is illegal in China. The parents then turned to local civil affairs authorities to plead their case， but their request remained unfulfilled. Officials said that though the boy is seriously ill， as long as he is alive， there should be respect for his life.

This is not the first time that the issue of euthanasia has reared its head in the public sphere in China. In 2007， a 29-year-old woman， Li Yan， who was suffering from sclerotic muscle dystrophy， made a plea for euthanasia， throwing the controversial issue into spotlight. Li was completely unable to take care of herself with only her head and several of her fingers being able to move. She even went to the trouble of drawing up a draft bill on euthanasia， in hopes that it could be submitted to the national legislature by lawmakers sympathetic to her cause.

Calls for its legislation on euthanasia， especially for those cases involving minors， have been on the increase in recent years after the media unveiled a series of rejected euthanasia applications for children who possessed severe birth defects or were experiencing late-stage cancer. Supporters say the practice is in accord with humanitarian principles， but opponents express concern that euthanasia legalization could lead to murder.

Right to life

Xu Hui （Changsha Evening News）： Chinas current laws define the situation where one is entrusted to conduct or facilitates euthanasia as murder. As a result， in many cases， although people may be loath to see their beloved ones struggle on in agony， they are unable to help them to be euthanized for legal concerns.

Debates on whether euthanasia should be legalized have long raged， even in many Western countries， and the focus of controversy is on whether or not euthanasia will engender undesirable outcomes.

Some people believe that choosing euthanasia is irreproachable for someone who is dying after suffering from the torment of pain caused by incurable or terminal diseases for a long period of time.

However， once the practice is legalized， the negative societal impacts would also be immeasurable. For example， in the Netherlands， which in 2001 became the first country in the world to legalize euthanasia， many of the countrys elderly people reportedly have decided to emigrate to other countries amid concerns that should they fall ill， they would be involuntarily subjected to euthanasia in their home country.

With the progress of modern medical science， the definition of “fatal illness” has continued to evolve over time， and the act of properly and scientifically defining such illnesses poses a challenge to the medical community and the judicial system alike.

Owing in particular to an underdeveloped medical aid system， sometimes， its not the case that the current medical technologies are incapable of rescuing the patients from their plight， but that the patients have， for financial reasons， to give up the kind of medical treatments that might otherwise have helped them recover. They do not want to drag the whole family into absolute poverty because of their illnesses and， equally， they have no desire to endure the end-less pain. It is this desperation that may force the hand of many to choose euthanasia.

Against this backdrop， should euthanasia be legalized， there is sizeable potential for it to be abused or selected for entirely the wrong reasons. It is also possible that employers， family members and friends of the afflicted may nudge seriously ill people in the direction of euthanasia， as a way of ending their lives and resolving all of the troubles surrounding their conditions.

Shu Yue （www.china.com.cn）： Its hard to discount the bottom line that from a legal perspective， euthanasia is a violation of individualsright to life and those who practice it could be held accountable for murder.

From an ethical perspective， however， euthanasia is still a controversial topic. Many Western scholars hold that three principles must be kept in mind with respect to an individuals life. First， the sanctity and protection of life always comes first， no matter the other considerations. Second， when the very act of living entails intolerable pain， then individuals may forfeit their right to life. Last， individuals personal will should hold prominence， and they should always have the freedom to make choices in matters concerning their own lives.

Particularly in some extreme cases， there exists sufficient justification for euthanasia to be carried out. For example， situations in which an individual can no longer tolerate the pain he or she experiences on a regular basis and is unable to face the desperation of being unable to recover.

Thus， there is no lack of support for the legalization of euthanasia under certain circumstances， so that terminally ill patients can be allowed to expire peacefully， and their family members can be saved the misery of watching their loved ones being tormented by unendurable pain.

However， the legal system must not only listen to the voices of the few， no matter how persuasive or heartrending their argument， but also take into consideration other social realities， particularly the common awareness of life among the general public.

Wang Kaiyu （www.xinhuanet.com）： Instead of euthanasia， family members， medical institutions， charity organizations and particularly the government should pay more attention to fulfilling their obligations and responsibilities in their attempts to relieve terminally ill patients from daily suffering.

Owing to insufficient medical insurance coverage in todays China， too often， patients are forced to actively cease their medical treatment for fear of unaffordable medical bills. Given this， if euthanasia was legalized， the negative effects would be unimaginable in scope and severity.

Right to die

Hu Yong （Legal Daily）： There have been longstanding debates on whether or not euthanasia should be legalized. The worries of those standing in the “no” camp mainly lie in the possible occurrence of passive euthanasia， in which dying patients are deprived of medical treatment and no efforts are made to extend the patients life， in effect， ending it. In China， passive euthanasia is responsible for a small， yet nonetheless considerable， proportion of patient deaths in big cities. However， owing to differences in the understanding of this issue， and also vague legal definitions as regards the particulars of euthanasia， those who support or facilitate the implementation of euthanasia are punished to varying extents. There is no clear legal statute specifying how such people should be dealt with.

Euthanasia is a sensitive issue intertwined with the right to life and that of being able to live in dignity， as well as legal and ethical concerns.

In its present form， it is arguable that the practice of euthanasia infringes upon peoples right to life and violates the Criminal Law， but underlying this behavior is the intention to deliver agonized patients from the physical and mental tortures visited upon them by incurable diseases. Actually it demonstrates a caring attitude toward terminally ill patients.

Judicial authorities should no longer turn a blind eye to euthanasia， given that reports on this issue are being encountered more and more nowadays. It has been suggested that on the precondition of establishing specific regulations and effective approval procedures， particularly on passive euthanasia， the process of legalizing euthanasia should be gradually inched forward. Then， based on new developments regarding the issue and the publics feedback， the relevant laws and regulations should be continuously amended.

Patients qualifying for euthanasia should be required to provide proof of suffering from incurable diseases， on the brink of death and unable to bear the burden of physical pain associated with their conditions. In addition， their conditions must be carefully assessed and confirmed by clinical doctors， medical authorities and judicial bodies. The applicants， with the exception of babies or infants， who will naturally be represented by their legal custodians， must be the patients themselves， so that it will be ensured that the desire for euthanasia represents the patients own will.