Key Points: A Medical and Human Rights Perspective
- Being 95 does not automatically make a person medically incapable or legally exempt from responsibility. Age is not a diagnosis.
- But medicine clearly recognizes frailty as a measurable state of increased vulnerability, and frailty is strongly associated with worse health outcomes and mortality in older adults.
- A 2026 meta-analysis of 59 prospective cohort studies involving 185,355 community-dwelling older adults found that non-robust older adults had an 83% higher risk of all-cause mortality than robust older adults.
- The more reasonable medical and human-rights question is therefore not whether a 95-year-old person should automatically receive special treatment, but whether his actual medical and functional vulnerability has been appropriately assessed and accommodated while due process is respected.
1. A Doctor’s Question: Was His Medical Vulnerability Properly Assessed?
As a physician, I believe one important distinction should be made at the beginning of any discussion about a 95-year-old defendant.
Chronological age and medical vulnerability are not the same thing.
A person does not become medically incapable simply because they reach a particular birthday. A 95-year-old may have substantial functional independence, while another person who is considerably younger may be severely frail. Therefore, it would be medically inappropriate to conclude that someone cannot participate in a legal proceeding merely because of age.
At the same time, medicine does recognize that some older adults develop frailty, a clinically meaningful state of reduced physiological reserve and increased vulnerability to adverse outcomes.
This distinction is supported by recent medical research.
A systematic review and meta-analysis published in 2026 examined 59 international prospective cohort studies involving 185,355 community-dwelling older adults. Compared with robust older adults, non-robust older adults had a significantly higher risk of all-cause mortality, with a pooled hazard ratio of 1.83. The association was even stronger when multidimensional frailty was considered, with a hazard ratio of 2.25.
In other words, frailty is not simply a synonym for “being old.” It is a measurable medical condition associated with substantially greater vulnerability.
This is why I would frame the medical issue differently.
The question should not be:
“He is 95. Should he automatically be treated differently?”
Instead, the more medically appropriate question is:
“What is his actual physical and functional condition, and what medical considerations are appropriate for that individual?”
That is a very different argument.
It does not ask society to excuse a person because of age. It asks society to avoid making medical assumptions based solely on age.
And equally importantly, it asks us not to ignore genuine vulnerability simply because the person happens to be involved in a controversial legal case.
2. What Happened in Brussels?
This distinction provides important context for the peaceful gathering held in Brussels on August 1, 2026.
According to the report, Fundamental Rights Organisation PostVersa organized a peaceful gathering at Place du Luxembourg in front of the European Parliament under the theme “A Call for Universal Human Rights, Due Process, and Human Dignity.”
Belgian journalists, human rights activists, and citizens participated in the event. Their stated concerns included due process, humanitarian treatment, freedom of religion or belief, and the protection of human dignity for the Chairman Lee Man-hee, a 95-year-old religious and peace leader currently facing trial in South Korea.
Importantly, the organizers said that the event was not intended to determine the Chairman Lee Man-hee’s guilt or innocence or to interfere with South Korea’s judicial process.
That distinction deserves attention.
A call for due process is not necessarily a declaration of innocence.
Similarly, asking for humane treatment of an elderly defendant does not necessarily mean opposing prosecution or demanding a particular verdict.
These are separate questions.
The first question is what the court ultimately determines based on the evidence and applicable law.
The second is whether the person involved is treated with dignity and whether appropriate legal and humanitarian safeguards are maintained while that process takes place.
At the Brussels event, organizers installed an empty chair with glasses and a walking stick. They explained that the chair symbolized the Chairman Lee Man-hee, while also representing elderly and vulnerable people whose human dignity requires protection.
Participants then observed 95 seconds of silence, corresponding to his age, and expressed messages concerning human rights, justice, freedom, hope, peace, and human dignity.
The symbolism was simple, but the underlying question was much broader:
Can a society pursue justice without losing sight of the vulnerability and humanity of the individual involved?
3. Why Frailty Matters More Than a Number
From a medical perspective, this is where the concept of frailty becomes particularly important.
Physicians do not normally determine an older person's medical vulnerability by looking only at their date of birth.
We consider factors such as mobility, muscle strength, ability to perform daily activities, nutritional status, cognition, comorbidities, medications, and overall functional reserve.
The medical literature supports the importance of identifying vulnerability among older adults. A 2025 systematic review and meta-analysis examined 57 studies involving 125,412 older adults presenting to emergency departments. The researchers evaluated different frailty and vulnerability screening instruments and found that the Clinical Frailty Scale, using a cutoff of 5 or higher, had a pooled sensitivity of 81% and specificity of 71% for predicting 30-day mortality. The authors nevertheless cautioned that existing screening instruments should not be used as standalone prognostic tools.
That last point is especially important.
Frailty assessment is useful, but no single score can tell us everything about a human being.
A physician must still evaluate the individual.
It means that if medical vulnerability is relevant to decisions concerning an extremely elderly person, it should be assessed rather than assumed.
That principle applies whether the individual is famous or unknown, popular or unpopular, religious or nonreligious, accused of a serious offense or a minor offense.
4. Justice, Human Dignity, and the Person Behind the Case
The Brussels gathering also raises a broader question about how we think about justice.
When a person becomes the subject of a controversial criminal case, it is easy for the individual to become reduced to a headline, a charge, a political controversy, or an organizational identity.
But medicine begins from a different perspective.
A physician sees a person before seeing a label.
That does not mean ignoring wrongdoing. It does not mean declaring a patient innocent. And it certainly does not mean that medical considerations should replace judicial decisions.
It means recognizing that human vulnerability does not disappear when someone enters the justice system.
The participants in Brussels reportedly emphasized due process, the presumption of innocence, humane treatment of detainees, medical and humanitarian consideration for elderly people, and freedom of religion or belief.
They also used the phrase:
“Human Rights Have No Exceptions.”
For me, this phrase is meaningful precisely because it should apply beyond this particular case.
If human rights are truly universal, they cannot depend entirely on whether society likes the person involved.
A controversial religious leader should have human rights.
At the same time, universal human rights do not mean universal exemption from the law.
That distinction is essential.
Due process is not the same as acquittal.
Humanitarian treatment is not the same as immunity.
Medical assessment is not the same as a declaration of innocence.
These distinctions allow us to discuss the case without prejudging the outcome of the Korean judicial process.
As a physician, my position is therefore relatively simple.
I do not believe that being 95 years old automatically establishes that the Chairman Lee Man-hee should be exempt from legal responsibility.
But I also do not believe that his age should be treated as medically irrelevant.
The appropriate approach is individual assessment: What is his actual medical condition? What is his functional capacity? Is there clinically significant frailty? Are there medical or humanitarian considerations that should be taken into account? And can those considerations be addressed while preserving the integrity of the judicial process?
Those are legitimate questions.
They are not arguments against justice.
They are part of what humane justice should look like.
The peaceful gathering in front of the European Parliament ultimately drew attention to a principle that extends far beyond one Korean religious leader.
It asks whether we can maintain two commitments at the same time:
accountability under the law and respect for human dignity.
Indeed, I would argue that a mature justice system should not have to choose between them.
The court should decide the legal questions through the appropriate judicial process.
Medical professionals should evaluate medical questions based on evidence rather than assumptions.
And society should continue to recognize that fundamental human dignity does not disappear simply because a person has become a defendant.
Perhaps that is the most useful way to understand the Brussels gathering.
It does not require us to decide whether the Chairman Lee Man-hee is guilty or innocent.
It asks us to consider something more fundamental:
Even when a person is facing the full force of the law, can we still see the human being standing behind the case?
From a medical perspective, the answer should be yes.
And from a human-rights perspective, that principle should not depend on age, religion, nationality, reputation, or popularity.
Justice should be firm.
Due process should be fair.
Medical vulnerability should be assessed objectively.
And human dignity should remain intact.
Article Source: https://www.newscj.com/news/articleView.html?idxno=3422385
Medical Sources
Li Y, Seo H, Cho Y, et al. Association of frailty and mortality risk in community-dwelling older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 59 international prospective cohort studies. BMC Public Health. 2026;26:489. PubMed — 2026 systematic review and meta-analysis
Ku NW, Hsu YC, Mudhur J, et al. The Prognostic Accuracy of Frailty and Vulnerability Screening for Older Adults in the Emergency Department: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Annals of Emergency Medicine. 2025;86(5):496–510. PubMed — 2025 systematic review and meta-analysis
Medical note: The research cited above concerns associations between frailty/vulnerability and health outcomes in older populations. These findings should not be interpreted as evidence of Lee Man-hee’s individual medical condition.
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.jpg)
.jpg)
