Comparison of the protection paradox between legal expansion and legal absence of “medical assistance in dying”
10.12026/j.issn.1001-8565.2026.08.09
- VernacularTitle:“医疗援助死亡”法律拓展与法律缺位的保护悖论比较
- Author:
Dan HAN
1
Author Information
1. School of Marxism， Guangzhou Medical University， Guangzhou 511436， China
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
medical assistance in dying;
protection paradox;
bidirectional alienation;
institutional ethics
- From:
Chinese Medical Ethics
2026;39(8):1041-1051
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
A protection paradox exists in the contemporary legislation of medical assistance in dying （MAID）. That is， whether the legislative option leans toward legalization or absolute prohibition， the original intention of protecting vulnerable groups may contradict itself amid complex social realities. On the one hand， when the law expands autonomous selection through formal empowerment， the socioeconomic status， ability to access resources， and potential discrimination may turn this right into de facto coercion imposed on vulnerable groups. On the other hand， when implementing a ban on MAID to safeguard the right to life， abstract moral imperatives may undermine the authenticity of individual suffering and trigger conflicts between abstract principles and substantive justice. The protection paradox of MAID touches upon the profound challenge of how the law balances universal principles with individual narratives， as well as formal rights with substantive conditions. The key to breaking this dilemma lies in the fact that the legal framework must transcend the simplistic judgment on whether life can be terminated， and turn to construct an institutional design that is sensitive to individual narratives and resilient to structural injustice. This requires the law， while cautiously recognizing MAID under specific circumstances， to strive to strengthen the social support system， ensure equitable access to resources， establish a safeguard mechanism with multi-level assessment and procedural justice， and thereby enable end-of-life decisions to truly become a genuine expression of individual autonomy and life dignity.
