(EDITORIAL from the Korea Times on Nov. 29)

Mercy Killing
It's Urgent to Build Consensus on Euthanasia

South Korea has so far banned any type of euthanasia, outlawing any attempts to
allow patients and their families to determine their own fate: to live or die. In
1997, a patient in a vegetative state died after the artificial respirator was
removed. A Seoul court convicted the patent's family and doctor of homicide and
assisted murder, respectively. Since then, there has been debate over terminally
ill patients' right to ``die with dignity."
It is somewhat surprising that a local court made a landmark ruling Friday,
approving mercy killing without patient's consent for the first time in South
Korea. The Seoul Western District Court ordered feeding and ventilator tubes be
removed from a 75-year-old woman, identified as Kim Ok-kyung, who sustained
cerebral damage and fell into a comma while taking a lung examination in
February. The unprecedented decision has significant legal and medical
implications, as the court came to recognize a right to "death with dignity."
Friday's ruling is expected to re-ignite a heated debate over mercy killing
because there is no national consensus on this sensitive issue. It is too early
to predict that the National Assembly will legislate a law allowing euthanasia.
Mercy killings are permitted in some countries, including Belgium, Luxembourg,
Switzerland, the Netherlands and Thailand. U.S. states of Oregon and Washington
also legalize ``death with dignity." In many countries, euthanasia is permitted
on condition of patients' consent.
It is noteworthy that the court inferred Kim's presumed intent to die, although
she did not leave word on ending her life. Thus, the ruling is interpreted as
recognizing comatose patients' right to self-determination, even without their
prior consent. The court accepted medical opinion from Kim's doctor that her
chance of survival was nil and her family's testimony that she would not have
wanted to be burden to her children. Controversy is likely to erupt over the
presumed intent to die.
It remains to be seen if the hospital and its medical staff will follow the
court's order. It will be difficult for them to remove life-extending machines
from Kim because there is no law or regulation on mercy killing. First of all,
public attention is focused on whether the government and the ruling party will
take action for ``passive'' euthanasia, which will allow patients in a vegetative
state or with brain death to end their life by removing respirators or other
life-sustaining devices. This kind of mercy killing is different from "active"
euthanasia, which enables the terminally ill to die through lethal injections or
other drugs.
Officials at the Ministry for Health, Welfare and Family Affairs are taking a
cautious approach toward the ruling. They said the ministry will decide on mercy
killing carefully, as it is a matter of life ethics rather than medical
consideration. Families of the terminally ill are expected to rush to file suits
in pursuit of patients' self-determination. Some religious groups are firmly
against any type of mercy killing. Thus, it is urgent to build a national
consensus on this issue before deciding whether to allow it or not.
(END)