英文阅读：Laws need better understanding
When a pregnant woman suffering from dystocia needed a Caesarean section tosave her life, her husband refused to sign the "operation agreement". The
doctors and nurses could not carry out the operation and had to take protective
measures to ease the woman's agony as much as possible.
In the end, the woman died beside the operation equipment that could
otherwise have saved her life.
The incident happened a few days ago in a Beijing hospital and has shocked
the country.
Going by media reports, the husband undoubtedly is the only one to blame.
His stubborn refusal of the operation despite being warned of the consequences
is tantamount to manslaughter.
The doctors and hospital staff were very concerned. They tried their best
to persuade the husband to change his mind. They even notified the police, made
all preparations for the operation, and did all they could to maintain the life
of the woman.
But the hospital staff were bound by the agreement which ultimately cost
the lives of two people, including the baby. It was the only possible choice of
the hospital staff, for otherwise, they would have to bear responsibility for
the consequences.
The husband was reluctant to sign the agreement because of the legal
meaning of the signature. He knew he would have to bear all costs and the risk
of the operation once he signed.
This tragedy typically shows the impact of legal concerns that arise in
hospital-patient conflicts that occur frequently today. The increase in the
strict obedience of the law, no matter the circumstances, is the result of
efforts to make more people aware of the laws in recent years.
In the past, Chinese people would follow their ethical intuition in this
kind of situation; but now they have become more "cool-minded" (or rather,
cold-hearted).
The development of the understanding of laws in society is certainly a mark
of social progress. However, there must be something wrong with the
understanding of a particular law if it is followed so rigidly that a human life
has to be lost. If the law itself states so, then it should be thrown into the
dustbin.
Our problem is that over many years our efforts to promote knowledge of the
laws, and the media reports about law-related cases, have been too focused on
judicial responsibility. It prompts people to worry: "What kind of legal
consequence will I face."
What kind of slogan have we used most in promoting knowledge of the laws?
"Learn to protect your rights by legal means." People's understanding of the
laws today is more an association between legality and interests. In a certain
sense, our people have been misled.
Laws, in their original sense, requires people, in the first place, to
observe certain rules so as to ensure that society gets along in an orderly and
harmonious manner. It then punishes violators of the rules and regulations. In
other words, for citizens, abiding by the laws to maintain social order is of
primary importance, while avoiding violation of them, which incurs punishment,
is of secondary importance.
Here the first thing is a legal obligation to maintain social justice while
the second is to protect one's personal interests. People, however,
intentionally or unintentionally, limit their understanding of law on the
latter.
If anyone among the doctors, officials and policemen in the pregnant woman
case had a correct understanding of the true meaning of law, someone would have
said: "Put the legal responsibilities aside. Start the operation now."
Email: liushinan@chinadaily.com.cn
页:
[1]