bodyType

customContents

entityId

entityUuid

articlePageQuery

filter

article

articleBaseAdvertisingInfoArticle

articleListArticle

articleSeoArticle

hooksArticleAcknowledgementGateOverlayArticle

hooksTrackPageViewArticle

hooksContentInterestArticle

articleLinkingDataContent

hooksAmpRedirectArticle

articleSchemaContent

liveArticle

advertZone

sentiment

contentLock

topics

types

sections

paywallTypes

createdDate

publishedDate

sponsorType

urlAlias

moreOnThisArticles

commentCount

authorLocations

authors

corrections

displaySlideShow

multimediaEmbed

printHeadline

seriesContainer

articleSpeeches

socialHeadline

headline

images

flag

firstTopic

glossary

flattenTypeIds

image

relatedLinks

relatedNewsletters

__typename

sponsor

pdfFiles

seriesReverseOrder

series

disableOffPlatformContent

published

updatedDate

summary

subHeadline

body

keywords

readingTime

customTimezone

liveContents

SCMP Reporter

Euthanasia means literally 'good death' in Latin.

  Today it carries the modern definition of: 'Deliberate and intentional killing of a human being by a direct action, such as a lethal injection or the failure to perform the most basic medical management, like provision of nutrition and hydration, necessary to maintain life'.

In most countries, including Hong Kong, euthanasia is regarded as a crime of murder.

  However, attitudes of the courts towards this controversial issue vary from case to case.

   For instance, in a case in 1993, the families who asked a hospital to turn off the life support machine of a human who was not brain dead but hopelessly incapacitated, successfully obtained a declaration from the court stating that such an omission was not punishable in law unless it constituted 'a breach of duty to the patient'.

   The court ruled the duty was not breached because it was no longer in the patient's interest to prolong his life.

  Should euthanasia be legalised?   Religious leaders claim human life is God's gift and it's for God to determine the time of death. The main fear of opponents is the abuse of euthanasia.

   Would the poor, the ill or those unwelcome in the community have a 'duty to die' if the doctors were given a 'licence to kill'? Would the tragedies during World War II, when euthanasia was used to kill German psychiatric patients under Hitler's order, be repeated?   However, according to American doctor and euthanasia advocate Jack Kevorkian, everyone has a right of autonomy over his own life in which the state should not interfere. The matter of abuse can be solved by a 'living will' made by the patients to declare their own genuine wishes in advance.

  Opponents say euthanasia is not needed. A survey reveals that only a quarter of the terminally ill have a wish to die and they all suffer from clinically diagnosable de pression. Efforts should be made to eliminate the depressions in stead of the de pressed patients, they say. Also, with medication and a 24-hour in tensive care called 'palliative care', all pains can be mitigated.

  But there are those who say certain pains, physical and mental, simply cannot be alleviated, even with the best medication and care. To those pa tients, prolonged suffering is worse than death.

   Besides, people should be allowed to end their lives with dignity.

   If euthanasia is not legalised, they say, patients would have no choice but to continue their lives for the fear that their beloved families or doctors would be convicted of murder.

 The debate continues, but as yet there is no universally acceptable solution.

  Let us ask ourselves a question: Who should decide when and how to end our lives - an almighty God, the impartial law, doctors, the compassionate families, or the autonomous 'me'? Only when society reaches a consensus on this, may there be a sound answer.

Article written by Michelle Poon, Athena Cheung and Jason Wu, Year Two students of Department of Law, University of Hong Kong 



To die or not to die