2004-04-30 - 5:21 p.m.
(20 Apr 2004, SCMP) I write with reference to Jonathan Man��s opinion on euthanasia (April, 28). While clarifying the central concepts is important in discussing whether we should legalize euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide, I do not think we should always lay the burden on the government in initiating discussion among the public.
Of course, it would set up a useful framework of discussion if we distinguish carefully between active and passive euthanasia, between voluntary, involuntary and non-voluntary euthanasia, and between intended and foreseeable death. It may be even better if we have more consensuses on the meaning of life, the nature of medicine, and the conditions under which one is morally permitted to choose death and take one��s own life. Forging agreements on these normative issues is always more difficult than assessing the factual impacts of allowing or disallowing an individual case of euthanasia or its legalization; nevertheless, I am optimistic that we are moving towards a better answer towards the question through rational discussions based on logical reasoning and our reflected moral intuitions.
On the other hand, I do not think the definition of life is so important in the present context. People are not arguing whether euthanasia is a deliberate ending of life because even proponents of euthanasia would probably agree that it is. The real crux of the contention is under what conditions we are morally allowed to end one��s life.
And while the government should start researching the policy aspects of legalizing euthanasia, it would be exorbitant to request it to do everything in initiating public discussion on the matter. So long as freedom of expression is upheld in Hong Kong, everyone is entitled to express their opinion on the issue. Don��t you think the responsibility in stimulating public discussion lies on academics, media and schools?
0 comments so far?lt;/P>
?lt;/P>
