Korean scholars: Assisted suicide, abortion undermine ethical foundations

On December 13, prominent South Korean scholars gathered at the Sungsan Bioethics Research Institute’s 28th anniversary seminar in Seoul, where they cautioned that moves toward legalizing assisted suicide and broadening access to chemical abortion threaten to undermine basic ethical norms.

Key Takeaways:

• South Korean scholars met at a Sungsan Bioethics Research Institute seminar recently, during which they cautioned against anti-life policies such as expanding abortion and legalizing assisted suicide.

• One scholar warned that much of the public misunderstands assisted suicide legislation, and that were it to be legalized, safeguards would quickly be eliminated.

• Another commented on the dangers of the abortion pill despite it being marketed as "safe."

• They also warned against euphemisms meant to downplay the severity and reality of abortion and assisted death.

The Details:

During the meeting, Shin Hyo-sung, an adjunct professor of law and public administration at Myongji University, warned that Korea’s “Assisted Dignified Death Act” is confusing and has long-term implications. In remarks cited by Christian Daily, Shin stated: 

“Death with dignity" refers to withdrawing life-sustaining treatment at a terminal patient’s request, while assisted suicide involves a person ending their life with help from others, and euthanasia means a third party directly causes death. When these concepts are mixed in legislation, misunderstanding is inevitable, and that creates serious legal risk.

Shin elaborated, "The Dutch case is a clear warning that laws introduced with good intentions can expand in unintended directions,” alluding to how euthanasia has been made more easily accessible over time in the Netherlands. Restrictive limits promised at the onset of euthanasia legislation were slowly relaxed as oversight mechanisms ceased to safeguard vulnerable people. Gradually, patients with mental illness and dementia, as well as children under 12, qualified for euthanasia.

“Legalizing assisted suicide represents a fundamental shift across bioethics, medicine and law. Without broad social consensus and tighter safeguards, the consequences may be irreversible,” Shin added. 

Medical professionals also pointed out how insufficient training in palliative and end-of-life care could normalize euthanasia as a de facto option instead of as a last resort. Consequently, confusing the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment (allowing natural death) with euthanasia (directly killing) would erode moral boundaries and could broaden eligibility criteria over time, leading to more widespread applications. In view of this situation, they highlighted the importance of expanded palliative care resources and infrastructure for vulnerable people before pro-euthanasia amendments to the law are introduced. 

Choi Ga-eun, a nurse at Korea University Anam Hospital, argued that inadequate end-of-life training for Korean medical students could unintentionally normalize euthanasia as an alternative to life-affirming care.  

Other medical professionals lambasted the notion of regarding the abortion pill as “safe” or as a solution for mothers experiencing unplanned pregnancy because of the risks associated with the two abortion pill regimen drugs: mifepristone and misoprostol. Those risks include incomplete abortion, hemorrhage, and infection.

Dr. Hong Soon-cheol stated: 

Misoprostol was originally developed to treat gastric ulcers. Its use as an abortion drug emerged from its side effect of inducing uterine contractions, not from being designed for reproductive care.

Dr. Hong detailed how the increasing trend of commercial abortion pills without medical supervision has given rise to side effects like “heavy bleeding, uterine rupture, and further surgery—making the procedure hidden but not harmless”, as Faith Freedom reported. 

“This is not a safe procedure. It is simply a ‘hidden abortion’ — less visible, but not less dangerous,” Dr. Hong cautioned. 

Zoom Out:

The academics reaffirmed that euphemistically portraying abortion and other anti-life measures as “choice," “freedom," or “reproductive rights” can obscure the risks involved during such procedures. Genuine life-affirming freedom entails the ability to live and obtain authentic support in difficult moments, and not simply the lack of legal obstacles to terminating life. 

Quoting statistics from the United Kingdom’s National Health Service, Jang Ji-young, chair of the SUFL steering committee, showcased that although complications happen at considerable rates, official reports only capture the tip of the iceberg. In the US, abortionists have been telling women to lie to ER doctors about taking the abortion pill for years, and in doing so, they have successfully skewed the data to make the abortion pill appear safer than it is, and pregnancy more dangerous than it is.

“It is not a lower-risk option. It is a less visible risk,” Jang stated, in remarks cited by Christian Daily. 

“Language such as ‘choice’ and ‘reproductive rights’ can obscure the reality that risk is being transferred to women. This weakens both women’s health rights and the protection of fetal life,” he added. 

The Bottom Line:

Many of the comments made by the academics ring true for pro-life advocates fighting in defense of vulnerable human lives. This is because sound bioethics hinges on unequivocal distinctions between permitting natural death and preserving the sanctity of each human life, and the duty to protect the vulnerable.

Life has to be protected at every stage, and medical practice should focus on compassionate care that neither hastens death nor commodifies it at the behest of individual whims.