Editor's note: In recent days, a girl known online as Sha Baibai has captured the attention of many Chinese netizens and sparked a heated discussion on euthanasia. After suffering for years from incurable lupus, in her 40s, she chose to end her life in Switzerland where euthanasia is legal. Sha has documented her final days on videos that are available online. Many netizens recognize and understand Sha Baibai's choice. Two experts share their perspectives on the matter with China Daily.

Evolving social perspectives prompt new understandings

The tragic yet inspiring case of Sha Baibai — a Chinese woman who chose euthanasia to escape her suffering — invites a deeper introspection of our societal attitude toward death and the controversial issue of euthanasia itself. What's particularly compelling here is the support from her father, which stands in stark contrast to prevalent societal norms in such cases. Sha's public persona — marked by her proactive online presence—adds another layer of complexity to this narrative.

Moreover, Sha's story has received a largely sympathetic response; it also reflects a broader shift toward a more empathetic understanding of death. Her long battle with lupus erythematosus, a terminal illness, showcases a courageous fight against suffering, one that many can relate to. Therefore, her decision to seek relief from her pain should be viewed as a dignified choice — an assertion of her right to avoid unnecessary suffering.

Addressing society's understanding of death, particularly euthanasia, is crucial. Sha's situation offers us an opportunity to re-evaluate traditional views on dying. This case can transform the stereotype of death as something to be feared into a broader understanding that encompasses respect for both life and death. It suggests a potential reclaiming of autonomy for individuals facing terminal illnesses, challenging us to think differently about how we treat those who suffer.

This incident also underscores a significant societal shift, as public opinion in China begins to embrace more nuanced views on challenging topics like euthanasia. While the responses to Sha's case are largely positive, they indicate a movement towards a more compassionate perspective on individual suffering and the right to make end-of-life choices.

However, we cannot overlook the legal hurdles that complicate the issue of euthanasia. The superficial similarities between euthanasia and homicide create formidable barriers that hinder progress. Euthanasia can be classified into two categories: passive, involving the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment, and active, which involves administering medication to cause death. The latter, as illustrated in Sha's case, poses significant ethical and legal dilemmas.

Traditional legal interpretations often deem the consent of individuals in such cases invalid, being rooted in the belief that society must shield individuals from making irreversible decisions—especially under distressing circumstances. Yet, when faced with terminal illness and excruciating pain, this reasoning becomes problematic. By denying individuals the right to choose their paths—whether that path leads to life or death — we risk prolonging unnecessary suffering.

Thus, the argument for establishing a formal euthanasia framework in China is gaining momentum. Advocating for legislative changes surrounding euthanasia transcends legal considerations; it represents a compassionate response to the needs of those who are suffering. It acknowledges the harsh reality that many individuals may choose more desperate measures — like suicide — if they are denied a dignified way to end their pain.

Sha's case illustrates the pressing need for a societal and legislative shift regarding euthanasia. This conversation cannot simply be reduced to the binary of right and wrong; it demands a comprehensive understanding of human suffering, the complexities of interpersonal relationships, and the inherent dignity of individuals confronting terminal illnesses. As society grows increasingly willing to engage with these difficult topics, we must cultivate a legal environment that not only recognizes these realities but actively protects the rights and choices of those enduring unimaginable suffering. Embracing this progressive stance will enhance our collective humanity and compassion in the face of death.

Zhao Jun, a professor of law at the Beijing Normal University

Navigating the intersection of legal principles and personal choices

While the call for reform regarding euthanasia grows louder, we must return to foundational legal principles — namely, the assumption that civil rights begin at birth and end at death. The question remains: Does everyone inherently possess the right to choose their time of death? Our traditional civil laws do not reflect this right. The prevailing belief in Chinese society is that enduring hardship is better than a peaceful death; euthanasia is met with resistance. Currently, there are no legal provisions for euthanasia in China. This means any act leading to death — whether direct or indirect — could carry significant legal consequences. If death results directly from an action, one may face charges of intentional harm; if it is indirect, one could still bear responsibility.

Of course, people are entitled to manage their lives, provided they do not violate social morals or laws. However, should we hold individuals accountable for their choices when it comes to life and death? While social views may have shifted, they remain deeply divided. For someone weary of life, considering a move to a country where euthanasia is legally permissible can be seen as a valid choice. Yet in our context, euthanasia is fundamentally opposed. This principle against euthanasia is deeply embedded in our legal system.

Looking to the future, any modifications to these principles must reflect the opinions of the majority. Euthanasia is a polarizing issue that deserves careful examination from multiple perspectives. While advocates argue for compassion and individual rights, detractors emphasize the need to protect vulnerable populations from potential abuses or coercion.

In discussing Sha Baibai's case, we must be cautious. While her narrative highlights the urgency of re-evaluating our perspectives on euthanasia, it's equally vital to recognize the legal and ethical framework that currently governs Chinese society. Euthanasia, even in the face of suffering, presents a complex interplay of rights, responsibilities, and societal values.

While the debate surrounding euthanasia is becoming more pronounced, we must approach it with a balanced perspective. Acknowledging personal suffering is essential, but we cannot ignore the legal principles that guide China's society. It is critical that any potential changes to the law on euthanasia come from public discourse, ensuring that we maintain the integrity of our legal system while considering the ethical implications of our choices surrounding life and death. Only through thoughtful dialogue can we hope to navigate these turbulent waters effectively.

Qiao Xinsheng, a professor of law at the Zhongnan University of Economics and Law. The views don't necessarily represent those of China Daily.

If you have a specific expertise, or would like to share your thought about our stories, then send us your writings at opinion@chinadaily.com.cn, and comment@chinadaily.com.cn.