In this blog post, we will examine the reasons for supporting assisted dying (euthanasia) and the grounds for doing so from various perspectives.
On May 21, 2009, the Supreme Court of the Republic of Korea issued a final ruling in the so-called “Grandma Kim Case,” permitting the removal of a ventilator. This ruling reignited public debate regarding the legitimacy of assisted dying. Assisted dying refers to the practice of discontinuing futile life-sustaining treatment for patients with no prospect of recovery, allowing them to die naturally while maintaining their human dignity.
On February 18, 2008, Grandmother Kim was admitted to Severance Hospital for a biopsy to confirm whether she had lung cancer. During the procedure, she suffered brain damage due to excessive bleeding and fell into a vegetative state. Her family requested that the hospital discontinue futile life-sustaining treatment so she could end her life with dignity, but the hospital refused, leading to a lawsuit. The Supreme Court ruled that, in cases where a patient who has reached the terminal stage of illness with no possibility of recovery is recognized as exercising their right to self-determination based on human dignity, value, and the right to pursue happiness, the discontinuation of life-sustaining treatment may be permitted unless there are special circumstances. Furthermore, the court held that if a patient has previously expressed their intention to refuse or discontinue life-sustaining treatment in anticipation of reaching a terminal stage with no prospect of recovery, their right to self-determination through advance medical directives may be recognized—even if they are unable to express their will at the time of treatment discontinuation—unless there are special circumstances. In accordance with this ruling, Ms. Kim’s ventilator was removed on June 23, 2009, and she subsequently passed away on January 10, 2010.
This Supreme Court ruling marked a significant turning point in the debate over death with dignity, as it recognized the right of patients and their families to choose a dignified death at the crossroads of life and death. In a previous landmark case—the Boramae Hospital case—the family had discharged the patient citing financial reasons, resulting in the patient’s death. At that time, the court found the family guilty of murder and the medical staff guilty of aiding and abetting murder. Looking at how the court’s rulings have evolved in this way, it is clear that perceptions of assisted dying have gradually shifted within South Korean society as well.
Despite these changes, opinions on assisted dying remain sharply divided. Various international surveys conducted in the past have also revealed significant differences in perceptions between countries, and the social debate surrounding assisted dying continues in South Korea. So, why do so many people oppose assisted dying?
First, there are religious and ethical concerns. Most religions regard human life as paramount and maintain that under no circumstances should one human being artificially end another’s life. For example, the Christian community in South Korea argues that since all life belongs to God, intentionally ending a life constitutes a challenge to God’s sovereignty. For this reason, the Christian community has consistently opposed assisted dying. From an ethical perspective, it is argued that human dignity is a value that no one can infringe upon. While cases of patients refusing treatment have existed for a long time, medical professionals or others do not have the authority to end another person’s life. There is also concern that if assisted dying were institutionalized, a culture of disregard for life could spread. Human life can never be reduced to an economic value; it is argued that if a patient’s family or medical staff prioritize costs over life due to financial burdens, the dignity of life could be compromised. Furthermore, it is argued that since the state protects the lives of even death row inmates on the grounds of human dignity, it is a logical contradiction to allow the lives of innocent people to be abandoned.
Given these various reasons, I believe there are sufficiently valid points in the arguments of those who oppose assisted dying. Human dignity is paramount and must be protected at all costs. Therefore, there is merit to the argument that patients should be treated until the very end, even if only a very slim chance of recovery remains. However, I hold a different view on assisted dying. If human dignity is the value that opponents of assisted dying hold most dear, then I believe that, in order to uphold human dignity, the right to choose how to end one’s own life must also be respected. This view is also connected to the human right to pursue happiness. Can we truly call it a happy life for a patient to merely sustain life while enduring extreme suffering, hooked up to a ventilator and various artificial devices? We cannot definitively assert that a life in which a patient with no chance of recovery endures suffering with no end in sight is necessarily a dignified one. I believe that even such patients have the right to pursue happiness, and their right to choose how to bring their lives to a close while minimizing suffering must also be respected.
There are also doubts regarding the religious community’s arguments against death with dignity. If the argument is that only God has the authority to take human life and that humans must not act in His stead, then using modern medical technology to prolong the life of a patient with almost no chance of recovery for an extended period could also be interpreted as an intrusion into God’s domain. Furthermore, if one argues that life must not be ended artificially, then the act of continuously postponing a natural death through the use of various medical devices might, in fact, be even more artificial. Therefore, I do not believe that the simple act of discontinuing life-sustaining treatment can be equated with the act of artificially taking a life.
Today, systems regarding death with dignity and euthanasia vary greatly from country to country. Some countries permit active euthanasia, while others allow only physician-assisted suicide or the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment, with legal scopes differing across nations. Consequently, it is difficult to describe the current state of these systems based solely on the number of specific countries. However, discussions aimed at respecting patients’ right to self-determination and quality of life are steadily expanding worldwide. I believe that dignified death should be permitted under strict legal and medical standards—not only to respect the wishes of patients facing death and protect their human dignity, value, and right to pursue happiness, but also to alleviate the suffering and burden of their bereaved families.
