It's Urgent to Build Consensus on Death With Dignity

South Korea allowed death with dignity for the first time on Tuesday when doctors at the Seoul-based Severance Hospital removed life support from a comatose patient. The removal came 33 days after the Supreme Court made a landmark decision to recognize a right to die with dignity, and ordered the hospital to pull the plug on the female patient, identified as 77-year-old Kim.

Her family, who fought for the self-determination of her fate, had apparently hoped to allow her to die with dignity immediately after the life support was switched off. It was a surprise to both the family and the hospital that the patient is still breathing on her own. This unexpected situation is expected to re-ignite controversy over what ``death with dignity'' really means.

In fact, there are no clear guidelines on this issue, even after the top court's ruling in favor of it. The court presented two conditions for what is called ``passive euthanasia.'' First, patients should be in a terminal illness stage in which they have no hope of recovery. Second, a screening committee comprised of medical doctors and other experts should decide whether patients have entered this stage.

What's more important is that patients should express their will to refuse meaningless medical treatment for the sake of prolonging life. Such expression can be put forward by the patients themselves or by their family on behalf of them.

The Supreme Court has only set these conditions for death with dignity. But in realty, it is hard for doctors to put the court ruling into practice without any obstacles. As seen in the case of Kim, what can and should be done if patients continue to breathe on their own after doctors pull the plug on them? Therefore, it is urgent for the nation to legislate laws to clearly define what is death with dignity and set guidelines on how to enforce it.

Rep. Shin Sang-jin of the governing Grand National Party (GNP) presented a bill on the right to die with dignify to the National Assembly in February. The bill stipulates that such a right be given to patients who are diagnosed as terminally ill _ with no possibility of treatment and recovery _ by at least two doctors.

It is not clear if Shin's bill will be adopted or not. But it is likely to fuel a debate over this sensitive issue not only among lawmakers and policymakers, but also among doctors, patients and the people. Thus, it is urgent that the government and the legislature should make efforts to reflect opinions from all walks of life and build a consensus. And then they must speed up the process of laying the legal groundwork for terminally ill patients' self-determination of their own life.