Passage One 

Certainly, the concept of “death with dignity” has become an increasing focus of the debate, not the least because of medical progress that has brought about a major increase in the number of retired and aged persons. The issue has generated lots of legislation, much of which confuses rather than clarifies an important question in euthanasia: Who will pull the plug? 

In general, the laymen’s(外行人) view of euthanasia is one of “mercy killing,” or active intervention to end life, with little or no concept of the possibility of a passive form. 

I make no excuses and ask no forgiveness for admitting that I have practiced passive euthanasia for many years. In fact, I gave instructions to the doctor attending my own mother in her last illness that she should receive no antibiotics nor be tube-fed. At that stage, she was in her 98 th year, suffering from her third stroke and unconscious with pneumonia. 

I have never practiced active euthanasia, a deed that in my country is regarded as murder and could merit the death penalty. But I do believe that in the clinical practice of medicine, active euthanasia has a definite place. I also believe that we should not be afraid to discuss its place in the scheme of things and to explore the possibilities in this approach to the terminally ill. 

I cannot accept the simple statement that a doctor does not have the right to take life; furthermore, I believe the greatest difficulty is to define life. I myself have defined it as joy in living. Given the absence of this quality, the request of the suffering person and the satisfaction of other criteria such as good faith on the part of those caring for the person and the completion of legal requirements, there is no ethical reason why active medical euthanasia may not be administered. 

Indeed, I have always wondered at the kind of person who would mercifully end the life of a suffering animal, yet would hesitate to extend the same privilege to a fellow human being. 

As a scientist and a humanitarian, I find society’s attitude toward the different ways of causing the death of an individual both hypocritical (虚伪的) and illogical. Consider that, for as long as man has inhabited the earth, he has accepted with few reservations the right to kill and be killed on the battlefields, even when this leads to not only his own but multiple deaths. 

I have talked to legal, ethical and medical authorities in many parts of the world on the need for active euthanasia. Again and again the same questions came up: 

Who will decide when a life is to be terminated and how can mistakes be avoided? 

Would doctors perhaps misuse the right to life by getting rid of the people they do not like? 

Does a doctor have the right to play God? 

If it is feared that a doctor is playing God when he terminates a life, it can just as readily be argued that he is playing the same role when he prolongs the life of a terminally-ill patient. And surely, when the terminally-ill person develops an inter-current infection that will cause death if not treated, are we not also interfering with God’s will by instituting treatment and preventing the patient from dying of the infection?