What this page covers
This essay surveys older reports about physician-assisted suicide, euthanasia and decisions to withdraw life-sustaining treatment in countries other than Australia, Canada, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the United States. Those countries have separate entries in the collection.
Important context
The material below is a historical overview, not medical, legal or personal advice. Laws and clinical standards change. Anyone facing an end-of-life decision should consult qualified professionals and consider the rules that apply in their jurisdiction.
Country summaries
Colombia
In 1997, Colombia's Constitutional Court found that euthanasia for a terminally ill person who gives clear consent could be compatible with constitutional protections. The decision called for lawmakers to establish procedures. A later proposal concerning physician-assisted suicide did not secure enough support in the Senate in 2007.
Japan
A 1995 Yokohama District Court case involving a terminally ill cancer patient resulted in a suspended sentence for the physician. The court described a demanding set of conditions, including unbearable suffering, an imminent death, exhaustion of available relief and a clear request from the patient. The case did not satisfy those conditions.
South Africa
Historical reports describe physician-assisted suicide as criminalized while public bodies debated end-of-life legislation. A 1997 law-commission discussion paper considered refusal of treatment, pain relief with foreseeable secondary effects, advance instructions and tightly limited assistance for competent adults. Medical and religious organizations expressed differing views about the proposals.
South Korea
In 2009, the Supreme Court upheld a decision permitting withdrawal of a respirator in a case involving a patient with no prospect of recovery and a previously expressed wish not to receive prolonged artificial support. The ruling distinguished treatment withdrawal from directly causing death and emphasized patient dignity and expressed wishes.
Questions raised across jurisdictions
- How should a competent person's current or previously expressed wishes be identified?
- What distinction does a legal system draw between refusing treatment, relieving suffering and intentionally causing death?
- What safeguards are proposed for capacity, voluntariness, prognosis and protection from pressure?
- How do religious, secular and professional traditions evaluate autonomy, compassion, suffering and the duties of medicine?
These questions are not answered uniformly. The same words may describe different legal categories, and a court decision in one country should not be treated as a statement of current law elsewhere.
Reading the older record
The source material for this page was assembled from historical court reporting, law-reform discussions and period journalism. Several dates fall before the current legal frameworks used in those countries. They remain useful for understanding how public arguments developed, but readers should verify present rules through official sources.
For related reading, see the collection's end-of-life assistance overview, religion and law, human rights and morality and ethics.