When a pregnant woman suffering from dystocia needed a Caesarean section to save 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."