Husband Sentenced to 5 Years for Removing Ventilator from Critically Ill Wife, What Do You Think?

"Judges' Sentences Too Harsh" vs "Should Have Followed Legal Procedures"
Expert: "May Not Have Known Well About Life-Sustaining Treatment Withdrawal System at the Time of Incident"

A husband who removed the ventilator from his wife in the intensive care unit, causing her death, was sentenced to five years in prison by a citizen jury trial, sparking divided opinions among citizens. The photo shows medical staff at a university hospital. The photo is unrelated to specific expressions in the article. / Photo by Yonhap News

[Asia Economy Reporters Seunggon Han and Seulgi Kim] A husband who removed his wife’s ventilator in the intensive care unit, causing her death, was sentenced to five years in prison by a citizen jury trial, sparking divided opinions among citizens. Some argue that the court’s sentence is excessive, while others point out that the husband’s failure to follow the legal procedures for discontinuing life-sustaining treatment is problematic.

Experts have pointed out that the issue stems from limited accessibility to institutional systems regarding the discontinuation of life-sustaining treatment.

On the 10th, the Chuncheon District Court Criminal Division 2 (Chief Judge Jin Won-du) sentenced A (59) to five years in prison and ordered his immediate detention on charges of murder.

A was charged with removing the ventilator intubated in the airway of his wife B (56) by hand in the intensive care unit of a hospital in Cheonan, Chungnam Province, on June 4 last year, causing her death.

During the citizen jury trial, A’s defense attorney explained that B had no chance of recovery and that B had informed A and their children during her lifetime that she opposed life-sustaining treatment. A claimed, "My wife often told the family, 'I don’t want to be a burden to others, so even if we get sick later, let’s not undergo life-sustaining treatment.'"

On the other hand, the prosecution sought a seven-year sentence, citing that the life-sustaining treatment period was only one week and that A did not follow the legal procedures for discontinuing life-sustaining treatment despite it being possible. They also referenced a precedent from 2016 where a wife who turned off her husband’s ventilator?who was dependent on life-sustaining treatment due to ALS?was sentenced to three years, arguing that A should receive a harsher sentence.

All nine jurors found A guilty. The court stated, "Respecting the jury’s opinion in accordance with the purpose of introducing citizen jury trials, we sentence A to five years in prison and order his immediate detention due to flight risk," adding, "Human life is the most sacred and its value cannot be measured."

This sparked criticism from some quarters that the sentence was excessive. South Korea currently enforces the so-called 'Dignity in Dying Act,' which allows discontinuation of life-sustaining treatment, and some argue that a five-year sentence is too harsh simply because A did not follow the procedures.

Choi, a 40-year-old office worker, pointed out, "How could someone working at a nursing hospital handle the rapidly increasing hospital bills day by day? The court’s explanation that all life is sacred probably sounded like empty words to families under economic pressure."

Since February 2018, South Korea has been implementing the so-called "Dignity in Dying Act," which allows the discontinuation of life-sustaining treatment. To use the system, one must either personally write an "Advance Directive for Life-Sustaining Treatment" or directly complete a "Life-Sustaining Treatment Plan."
Photo by Yonhap News

Since February 2018, South Korea has been enforcing the 'Hospice, Palliative Care, and Decisions on Life-Sustaining Treatment for Patients at the End of Life Act,' commonly known as the 'Dignity in Dying Act' or 'Life-Sustaining Treatment Decision Act,' which allows discontinuation of life-sustaining treatment.

To use the system, one must either personally complete an 'Advance Directive on Life-Sustaining Treatment' or write a 'Life-Sustaining Treatment Plan.' Additionally, if two or more family members testify that the patient did not want life-sustaining treatment, the doctor can discontinue it based on their judgment.

Conversely, some believe the court’s sentence was appropriate. Kang, a 20-year-old office worker, said, "The life-sustaining treatment period was only one week, and the problem seems to be that the husband himself judged the possibility of his wife’s recovery during that time."

Kang added, "Without a clear diagnosis of the wife’s illness, the husband should not have unilaterally taken her life. There were ways to follow the hospital’s recommendations or legally discontinue life-sustaining treatment, so I don’t understand why he acted that way."

An expert viewed the issue as arising from limited accessibility to the institutional system for discontinuing life-sustaining treatment and said efforts would be made to increase public awareness.

Jo Jeong-sook, director of the National Agency for Management of Life-Sustaining Treatment, explained in a phone interview with Asia Economy, "The incident occurred in May 2019. At that time, the Life-Sustaining Treatment Decision Act was not widely known, I presume."

Director Jo added, "Only when the awareness of the entire population, all medical institutions, and medical staff rises together regarding the Life-Sustaining Treatment Decision Act can such incidents be prevented. However, in this case, one week was too short a period to determine whether the patient was truly in the 'terminal stage.'"

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.