互联网个人求助是现实需求和技术进步的综合产物，即由个人发起、以特定个人利益为目的、在大病筹款平台或微信、微博等社交媒介中转发传播的求助信息及其过程。一类是自力型，完全由个人通过网站、社交媒介等进行，例如“卖文救女”的罗尔事件，发布信息直接面向社会公众；另一类是平台型，呈现出“求助方-大病筹款平台-救助方”结构，相关权利义务均依据平台协议，其发展势头迅猛，影响力甚至超过互联网慈善募捐。

但作为新生事物的互联网个人求助与相对稳定的法律规范之间存在脱节与鸿沟，如日中天的同时舆情不断，典型如2019年接连发生的“互联网个人求助第一案”莫春怡案和水滴筹“扫楼筹款事件”。《慈善法》否定了个人的公开募捐权，将互联网个人求助与慈善募捐划清界限，对其未禁止亦未规制，使其陷入灰色地带。前案中，司法实践将互联网个人求助纠纷适用于民事赠与合同、网络服务合同法律关系，但其影响力不免波及社会公众，隶属于“公益”或“私益”难以界定；后案中，平台将商业管理模式用于大病筹款活动，引发公众对于平台性质为“公益”还是“商业”的质疑。问题的根源在于，我国实务界和学术界对于“公益”、“慈善”、“募捐”、“赠与”等基础概念未达成统一声音，致使互联网个人求助在公益与私益、公益与商业两重博弈中面临游移和迷茫。

综合法律规范、中西历史文化、学术理论可见，从传统慈善、小慈善角度判断，互联网个人求助救人于急难并无异议，但从现代慈善、大慈善理念来看，其受益对象为某特定的个人而非公众福祉和公共利益，不具有公共属性。《慈善法》即采用大慈善理念，认定其不属于公益慈善是适当的。详言之，求助方与救助方之间应界定为具有公益、道德义务性质的民事赠与合同关系，双方与大病筹款平台分别成立网络服务合同关系，受平台用户协议的约束；公益与商业也并非绝对对立，大病筹款平台所属企业应为混合型商业组织，以商业属性为根本性质，兼顾公益目标，是支持我国大病救助体系的重要社会力量。

综观我国目前法律体系，互联网个人求助在宪法、民法、社会救助法等领域中均可找到一定的规制依据，但均未明确提及，立法存在空白。故未来需要完善立法，可修改《慈善法》、《社会救助法》或颁布互联网个人求助单行法：一是明确互联网个人求助和大病筹款平台的法律性质，确定民政部门为监管部门，禁止变相的互联网个人公募，逐步否定慈善募捐项目为个人筹款；二是细化完善大病筹款平台相关制度设计，明确其信息真实性保障责任、完善平台与第三方机构衔接机制、设立平台准入和退出机制；三是推动互联网个人求助行业伦理建设，平台严格内控，平衡公益与商业价值，行业积极自律，推动平台间共建共治共享，同时加强公众教育，引导依法救助与理性赠与。

 Internet personal help-seeking is a comprehensive product of realistic needs and technological progress, which is the help information and its process initiated by individuals, aimed at specific personal interests and transmitted in social media, such as serious illness fund-raising platforms, WeChat, microblog and so on. One is self-help, which is entirely carried out by individuals through websites and other social media, such as “Luo Er” event, publishing information directly to the public; the other is rely on platforms, presenting the structure of “help seeker-serious illness fund-raising platform-helper”. Their rights and obligations are based on the platform agreement. Internet personal help-seeking develops rapidly, and its influence even exceeds Internet charity fund-raising.

 However, there is a disconnect and gap between Internet personal help-seeking and relatively stable legal norms. Typical cases aroused public concern, such as “Internet personal help-seeking first case”——“Mo Chunyi” case and “water droplet” commercial popularizing event. The Charity Law negates individuals’ right of public fund-raising, delimits Internet personal help-seeking and charity fund-raising and does not prohibit or regulate it. In the previous case, the judicial decision applied the Civil Law to the dispute but its influence inevitably affected the public.It is difficult to define Internet personal help-seeking subordinate to “public welfare” or “private interest”. In the latter case, the platform used business management model for serious illness fund-raising activities, causing public doubts about the nature of the platform as “non-profit” or “profitable”. The root of the problem lies in the fact that the basic concepts of “public welfare”, “charity”, “fund-raising” and “Civil grant” have not reached a unified voice in the practical and academic circles, which leads to the dilemma of Internet personal help-seeking in the game of “public welfare” and “private interest” as well as “public non-profit” and “profitable”.

 Considering legal norms, Chinese and Western history and culture, academic research achievements, judging from the traditional charity’s point of view, Internet personal help-seeking does help save people in a hurry , but from the modern charity’s point of view, its beneficiary is a specific individual rather than public welfare or public interests. The Charity Law adopts the concept of modern charity, and it is appropriate to determine that International help-seeking should not be defined as for public charity. In detail, the legal relationship between help-seekers and helpers should be defined as Civil grant contractual relationship with the nature of interests of others and moral obligation, and the legal relationship between help-seekers,helpers and platforms should be defined as the network service contract relationship, which is bound by the platform agreements. Public welfare and commerce are not absolutely opposite. The enterprises managing serious illness fund-raising platforms should be mixed commercial organizations. Taking the commercial attribute as the fundamental nature and taking into account the public welfare goal, serious illness fund-raising platforms are important social forces to support the system of serious illness relief in China.

 Looking at the current legal system of our country, Internet personal help-seeking has some regulatory basis in the fields of constitution, the Civil law, the Social Assistance Law and so on, but they are not explicitly mentioned, and there are gaps in legislation. Therefore, in the future, it is necessary to improve the legislation, amend the Charity Law, the Social Assistance Law, or promulgate the Internet personal help-seeking Law. First, to clarify the legal nature of the Internet personal help-seeking and the serious illness fund-raising platform, to identify the departments of civil affairs as the supervisory department, to prohibit the covert Internet individual public fund-raising, and to gradually prohibit the charitable fund-raising project for specific individuals. Second, refine and perfect the relevant system design of serious illness fund-raising platforms, clarify their responsibility to guarantee the authenticity of information, perfect the link mechanism between platforms and third-party organization, and set up the access and exit mechanism of platforms. The third is to promote the ethical construction of Internet personal help-seeking industry, strict internal control of platforms, balance public interest and commercial value, positive self-discipline of the industry, promote co-construction and co-governance and sharing between platforms, and strengthen public education to guide rescue and rational grant according to law.