The news of that day has passed, but its meaning remains with us today. "That Day, Today" reads the present through the records of the past. — Editor's note
"Rest in peace, my love. I will carry all the guilt."
Six years ago today, on Sept. 10, 2020, a husband who removed his wife's ventilator in an intensive care unit, causing her death, was sentenced to five years in prison in a jury trial. The Chuncheon District Court's Criminal Division 2, presided over by Chief Judge Jin Won-doo, sentenced Lee, then 59, to five years in prison on a murder charge and ordered him detained in court.
Lee was indicted on charges of removing the ventilator tube inserted into his wife's airway at an intensive care unit of a hospital in Cheonan, Chungcheongnam Province, on June 4, 2019, causing her to die of hypoxia. His wife was 56 at the time. Lee removed the ventilator after murmuring to himself that he would bear all the guilt, and she died 30 minutes later.
Before the wife collapsed, the couple had worked as care workers. Having watched critically ill patients with slim chances of recovery receive life-sustaining treatment at hospitals, the wife often told Lee that she did not want to become a burden on her family and that they should forgo life-sustaining treatment if she ever fell ill. She also told her children not to keep her on life-sustaining treatment if she became sick.
Her fears became reality. At around 1 p.m. on May 29, 2019, the wife was found collapsed, and Lee immediately took her to a hospital. No clear diagnosis or cause was identified. Unable to breathe on her own, she was moved to a university hospital in the Daegu area that had a ventilator. Medical staff told Lee's family that recovery was unlikely and urged them to prepare themselves.
On the 31st of the same month, Lee moved his wife to a hospital in the Cheonan area, where his son lived. Four days later, he pulled out the ventilator tube inserted into her airway with his own hands. The hospital reported him to authorities, and prosecutors indicted him on charges of causing her death by removing the ventilator while knowing she would die.
Argued Recovery Was Unlikely
Lee, who requested a jury trial, asked for a suspended prison sentence, saying he removed the ventilator because there was no chance his wife would recover, because she had stated while alive that she did not want life-sustaining treatment, and because hospital bills ran 200,000 to 300,000 won a day.
Lee's side also argued that the hospital bore some responsibility for his wife's death. After he removed the ventilator at around 9:30 a.m. on the day of the incident in front of a nurse and was escorted out of the intensive care unit by medical staff, the staff did not reinsert the ventilator tube or take other emergency measures, and she died 30 minutes later, the argument went.
Lee's lawyer said the patient did not receive emergency care because of a disagreement between the attending physician, who wanted the tube reinserted, and other medical staff who said the family had refused reinsertion, adding that Lee had never refused reinsertion. Rather than blaming the medical staff, Lee's side asked the court to weigh the matter as a mitigating factor and hand down a suspended prison sentence.
Prosecutors, by contrast, sought a seven-year prison term, noting that the life-sustaining treatment had lasted only a week and that a legal withdrawal of such treatment had been possible. They also cited a precedent in which a man received a three-year prison term for removing the ventilator of his husband, who had depended on it for about two years because of Lou Gehrig's disease, arguing that Lee deserved a heavier sentence.
In his final statement, Lee trailed off, saying he was sorry to his wife and that circumstances had been difficult. All nine jurors in the trial found him guilty. Five jurors chose a five-year prison term, three chose four years, and one chose three years suspended for five years.
The court said human life is the most sacred thing and its value cannot be measured, adding that it was sentencing Lee to five years in prison in respect of the jurors' opinions and in line with the purpose of introducing jury trials, and that it was detaining him in court because of the risk of flight.
Moving Up the Point at Which Life-Sustaining Treatment Can Be Stopped
Meanwhile, disputes continue over life-sustaining treatment, which has been criticized for increasing patients' physical suffering and financial burden. As interest in dying with dignity grows, the number of people who have registered advance directives declaring they will not receive life-sustaining treatment has passed 3.2 million. Yet many patients still receive such treatment until just before death, regardless of their own wishes.
According to a report released last year by the Bank of Korea, titled "Life-Sustaining Treatment: Whose Choice Is It? The Gap Between Patient Preferences and Medical Reality, and Ways to Address It," the number of patients undergoing life-sustaining procedures and their share of deaths among older people have continued to rise. The Act on Decisions on Life-Sustaining Treatment, intended to guarantee patients' right to self-determination, took effect in 2018, but 67% of people aged 65 and over who died in 2023 had undergone life-sustaining procedures.
The researchers also noted that most life-sustaining procedures involve severe physical pain for patients. Using a visual analog scale for pain, they found that patients undergoing such procedures reported an average pain score of 35, three to four times the level for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (8.5) or trigeminal neuralgia (10).
The financial burden on patients and their families is also growing. Average end-of-life medical spending in the final year before death for patients on life-sustaining treatment rose from 5.47 million won in 2013 to 10.88 million won in 2023, roughly doubling over a decade. That is about 40% of the median income of households headed by people aged 65 and over.
As of 2024, life-sustaining treatment was withdrawn in only 19.5% of all deaths. Under current law, withdrawal is allowed only in the final stage of dying, when death is imminent. The Ministry of Health and Welfare decided in June, after the first meeting of the National Hospice and Life-Sustaining Treatment Committee for 2026, to begin discussions in earnest on allowing such decisions not only in the final stage of dying but also for terminally ill patients. The committee has begun reviewing a plan to move up the point at which life-sustaining treatment may be withheld or withdrawn from the final stage of dying to the terminal stage.
