The Legislative Yuan recently held a hearing on the Patient Right to Autonomy Act (病人自主權利法) and Hospice Palliative Care Act (安寧緩和醫療條例), calling for experts to make recommendations for improvements.
Enacted in 2019, the patient autonomy act stipulates that with advanced written directive, people with one of a list of clinical conditions — including terminal illness, an irreversible coma, permanent vegetative state and severe dementia — can request partial or full withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment, artificial nutrition and hydration. However, as of last month, only 45,621 people had signed an advance decision. The latter act gives people diagnosed with a terminal illness by two doctors the right to refuse life-sustaining treatment or cardiopulmonary resuscitation.
At the hearing, Fu Chun-hao (傅俊豪), the son of late sports anchor Fu Da-ren (傅達仁), took to the podium to push for the passing of a “dignified end of life act” (尊嚴善終法) for euthanasia. He said his father, who had pancreatic cancer, endured much pain and suffering before passing away by assisted suicide in Switzerland in 2018. He asked the legislature to revive the bill so that critically ill people can make the choice to live or die with dignity.
The hearing has rekindled the debate surrounding voluntary euthanasia, and exposed the lackluster adoption of advance directives as Taiwan becomes a super-aged nation. Although experts have said the cost is a major impediment to the promotion of advance directives, the main issue could be cultural values and ideology.
There are a number of reasons why Taiwanese generally feel that the autonomy of sick people is limited. Due to the high regard for medical authorities, familial paternalism and the inability to speak for oneself after becoming ill, a proactive attitude is difficult to maintain.
Furthermore, death remains a taboo topic in Taiwan, and the social pressure of “filial piety” makes it difficult not to use all means to “save” an older family member from dying. It means few people have given thorough thought to the complexities around death, let alone considered a proposal like the “dignified end of life act,” which calls for personal control over how one’s life can be ended.
Many Taiwanese prioritize issues concerned with living over the rumination of death, so they have a vague sense about their autonomy to live or die.
Unlike existing rules, the “dignified end of life act” would allow people to actively seek death and shorten life with help, rather than withholding medical care in a way that leads to natural death. The different approaches have sparked moral, ethical and religious debates not only in Taiwan, but across the globe.
Belgium, Canada, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Switzerland permit assisted suicide under tight regulations. Taiwan should not fall behind the prevailing view that people with terminal illnesses should be allowed to die with dignity. As euthanasia is a practice based on the idea of empathy and human dignity, legislation of euthanasia would ensure that those who are in irreversible pain can shorten their suffering, while bringing relief to family members.
Life and death are two sides of the same coin. Although euthanasia leads to death, it does so with the intention of living with dignity. If it is no longer possible to live with dignity, people should be given the right to leave the world in a peaceful, controlled way. The government and the public should not shun the topic of death, and should work together to pass the legislation for euthanasia.
China’s supreme objective in a war across the Taiwan Strait is to incorporate Taiwan as a province of the People’s Republic. It follows, therefore, that international recognition of Taiwan’s de jure independence is a consummation that China’s leaders devoutly wish to avoid. By the same token, an American strategy to deny China that objective would complicate Beijing’s calculus and deter large-scale hostilities. For decades, China has cautioned “independence means war.” The opposite is also true: “war means independence.” A comprehensive strategy of denial would guarantee an outcome of de jure independence for Taiwan in the event of Chinese invasion or
A recent Taipei Times editorial (“A targeted bilingual policy,” March 12, page 8) questioned how the Ministry of Education can justify spending NT$151 million (US$4.74 million) when the spotlighted achievements are English speech competitions and campus tours. It is a fair question, but it focuses on the wrong issue. The problem is not last year’s outcomes failing to meet the bilingual education vision; the issue is that the ministry has abandoned the program that originally justified such a large expenditure. In the early years of Bilingual 2030, the ministry’s K-12 Administration promoted the Bilingual Instruction in Select Domains Program (部分領域課程雙語教學實施計畫).
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) earlier this month said it is necessary for her to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and it would be a “huge boost” to the party’s local election results in November, but many KMT members have expressed different opinions, indicating a struggle between different groups in the party. Since Cheng was elected as party chairwoman in October last year, she has repeatedly expressed support for increased exchanges with China, saying that it would bring peace and prosperity to Taiwan, and that a meeting with Xi in Beijing takes priority over meeting
Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs spokesman for maritime affairs Rogelio Villanueva on Monday said that Manila’s claims in the South China Sea are backed by international law. Villanueva was responding to a social media post by the Chinese embassy alleging that a former Philippine ambassador in 1990 had written a letter to a German radio operator stating that the Scarborough Shoal (Huangyan Island, 黃岩島) did not fall within Manila’s territory. “Sovereignty is not merely claimed, it is exercised,” Villanueva said. The Philippines won a landmark case at the Permanent Court of Arbitration in 2016 that found China’s sweeping claim of sovereignty in
RSS