英语安乐死辩论正方

第一篇：英语安乐死辩论正方

英语安乐死正方辩论

Good morning ,everyone;my name is Yang.I am the first debater on positive side.Here are my opinions.，First I will state the definaton of euthanasia,that is people who are attacked by incurable disease can’t surffer from the pains and decide to employ a humane way to end their lives without pain.2，Second, as with survival, death is a kind of human rights.When he felt happier than survival of death, he has the right to choose death, society should meet the people's needs, and give every person who is suffering incurable disease to choose the right euthanasia.So citizens have the right to choose the way of death.It is another case of freedom of choice.3，Third , for mortally ill patients, long life actually only means extend pain.For them to end their lives is a kind of happiness, It provides a way to relieve extreme pain, and this conforms to humanism.4，Fouth , this way can free up medical funds to help other people and reduce the burden of family and society.In this regard,it takes family members’ interest and supplies a lot of benefits to society.5，so according to the previous paper, we have reasons to believe that euthanasia is a proper way, not only does it respect personal dignity,but also helps with social development.And it is the performance of human civilization progress too.That’s all my ideas ,thank you

第二篇：安乐死_英语辩论

(!)Euthanasia is to kill people.Life is so important for every one.People don’t only live for themselves, but they also live for their families and the society.If they choose to leave the world, they are not responsible for themselves, their families and the society.Euthanasia is disparagement of life.Life is so precious.Patients should cherish their life.They should try their best to prevail incurable disease.Everyone should show basic respect for life.No matter what happens, we should face up to the facts, we should live on with great courage, we should believe in wonder.Nothing is impossible.so we view that Euthanasia should not be legeled(!)Euthanasia stops the medicine developing.If the patients require using euthanasia, doctors won’t try their best to save patients.The medicine will stop progress.If making euthanasia is made legal, patients who use euthanasia will be protected by law.The doctors’ right will be obvious.Doctors are given too much power, and can be wrong or unethical.Patients put their faith and trust in the opinions of their doctor.people abuse euthanasia when it is legalized, it can harm people lives.In the name of euthanasia, carry out committing suicide.Miracle cures or recoveries can occur.You can never underestimate the power of the human spirit.It demeans the value of human life.In this country, human life means something.It could open the floodgates to non-critical patient suicides and other abuses.Any loosening of the assisted-suicide laws could eventually lead to abuses of the privilege.Many religions prohibit suicide and the intentional killing of others.The most basic commandment is “You shall not kill”.Insurance companies may put undue pressure on doctors to avoid heroic measures or recommend the assisted-suicide procedure.Health insurance providers are under tremendous pressure to keep premiums down.Euthanasia can become a means of health care cost containment..Physicians and other medical care people should not be involved in directly causing death.Mercy killing is morally incorrect and should be forbidden by law.It's a homicide and murdering another human cannot be rationalized under any circumstances.Human life deserves exceptional security and protection.Advanced medical technology has made it possible to enhance human life span and quality of life.Palliative care and rehabilitation centers are better alternatives to help disabled or patients approaching death live a pain-free and better life.Family members influencing the patient's decision into euthanasia for personal gains like wealth inheritance is another issue.There is no way you can be really sure if the decision towards assisted suicide is voluntary or forced by others.Mercy killing would cause decline in medical care and cause victimization of the most vulnerable society.Would mercy killing transform itself from the “right to die” to “right to kill”? How would one assess whether a disorder of mental nature qualifies mercy killing? What if the pain threshold is below optimum and the patient perceives the circumstances to be not worthy of living? How would one know whether the wish to die is the result of unbalanced thought process or a logical decision in mentally ill patients? What if the individual chooses assisted suicide as an option and the family wouldn't agree? As to face the parting, helplessness, loss of self-control, fear of death and sorrow and so the majority of patients will experience mental suffering.In this psychological requirement under the “Euthanasia”, we can say that he is reasonable? “According to the study of suicide, suicide and treatable mental illness is intrinsically related, but not the fatal disease, a study found that in 44 patients with advanced cancer, only three thought about suicide, but are there is a serious depression.Another study shows that 85 suicides, only one person suffering from terminal illness, and 90-100% of the suicides were suffering from obvious mental illness.Undeniably, the modern medical practice slow death process, often cited the loss of personal characteristics of patients Mei, dignity, independence and autonomy.However, the expression of active euthanasia as acts of personal autonomy, it is wrong.Reasons:(a)Since active euthanasia need help, then it is not an individual matter, but the open or in the public thing.(B)under the public recognition to self-defense, capital punishment and justice in the form of war, murder, only to defend the life for everyone, not to the benefit of those killed.So, even if death is painful relief, can not be lightly taken away the right to life committed to personal.(C)even if the person's self-determination recognized the right to choose to die, that does not mean the right to ask others to kill themselves, does not include the right to authorize self to kill others.(D)autonomy, including the right of slavery has never been their own, in other words, the right to freedom does not mean the right not to freedom.So to maintain the autonomy, the need to protect life, to give others their right to life is not trampling the principle of maintaining independence.Therefore, individual autonomy and social need and public objectives and values to be consistent.结尾active euthanasia may gradually lose its spontaneity, and thus out of(i)”secret euthanasia“, meaning that without their own consent, to be a doctor euthanized.(Ii)”forced euthanasia“, meaning patients suffering from terminal illness would be coercion to lure choose euthanasia to relieve their families in the economic and psychological pressures, and save limited resources of society, the patients chose to die, do not feel life is a burden or tired of life, but he felt the burden of someone else, and that others dislike.(Iii)”Deputy euthanasia“ means to allow patients who lack capacity to self-determination by the people ”proxy decision“ to euthanasia.(Iv)”Discrimination against euthanasia,“ the crisis is the number of types of patients such as the poverty stricken or belonging to ethnic minorities, may be ”clever“ to force that ”euthanasia“ requirement, the mercy of others.Made ill patients caught in the dilemma of both the opposition between the yield, resulting in additional unnecessary fear and anxiety.The information may be heard: ”Death is terrible!Your best choice of euthanasia.“ of the slip waves, is once the ”euthanasia“ is legalized, its use will inevitably extend to other types of patients but not the dying, if not cure patients, but not incurable disease, then the risk of Alzheimer's disease or brain degradation, even those born with severe disabilities Down syndrome baby..And so on.So, if this argument, once established, will only create panic and fear that they will be forcibly sent to ”euthanasia“ in the ranks.Therefore, I agree Frasen say, ”human life, merely the possibility of error, is enough to completely reject the“ euthanasia.” “ Euthanasia is humane because it helps to hasten the death of terminally ill patient.Death, as natural as birth, is sometimes a hard process that requires assistance, and euthanasia is part of such assistance.People have the right to die.It is unnecessary to maintain life artificially beyond the point when people will never regain consciousness.Extending an incurably ill patient’s life means the same as aggravating his pain.Efforts should not be made to perpetuate what has become a meaningless existence.Euthanasia can bring mental and physical release to the patient and his family when he is terminally ill and has no prospect of recovering.Mercy killing is motivated by nothing but love and sympathy for the dying patient.Most of the terminally ill patients themselves want to die with dignity and peace instead of agony and degradation.Medical treatment for a comatose patient cause great burden economically for the hospital and the patient’s family.It is inhumane to perform euthanasia no matter how painless the process is.Anyone who voluntarily, knowingly or premeditatedly takes the life of another, even one minute prior to death, is a killer.Euthanasia is a criminal offense because it involves the killing of a person.Legalized euthanasia will invite abuse of human life because any form of murder many be conveniently dubbed “mercy killing ”by unscrupulous people.Euthanasia raises many moral issues since it implies that active measures are taken to terminate human life.Doctors and nurses should do everything they can to save dying patients instead of hastening their death by active measures.The instinct for self-preservation is the strongest instinct that human beings possess.It is untrue that any patient himself should want to die.Doctors and nurses involved in euthanasia have discredited their profession, for euthanasia is a violation of the fundamental medical principle to save human life.Mercy killing is one of the most controversial issues in the world of medicine.As the picture given above depicts, A late sick mother desperately ill son request for euthanasia.But the son was cut for this。feeling helpless because he is at a loss what to do about it.The picture really sets me thinking.It implies that people differ in their attitudes towards the mercy killing.Some people think it is right.but others dont think so.now let us listen to everyone's different opinions 安乐死是医学界最有争议的问题之一。正如上面所示的视频所描绘的，一位晚期患病母亲病入膏肓，请求儿子实施安乐死。但儿子且为此获罪，感到无能为力，因为他们不知道该怎么办。这幅画确实发人深省。它暗示，人们在对待安乐死上看法不一致。有些人认为他是对的，但其他的不这样认为，现在让我们听听大家的不同观点

赞成

1.If a person loses the survivability of the community has not contributed to lose the meaning of life.reduce reliance on others and a burden on society.如果一个人失去了生存能力，对社会没有了贡献，也就失去了生命的意义，减少对别人的倚赖和对社会的负担。

2.the complete elimination of euthanasia patients can be painful diseases, mental stress and depression thinking exists.安乐死可以彻底消除病人的疾病痛苦，精神压力和思想懮愁

3.a person bound to die sooner or later die;One hundred dead, the living dead are free, patients and relatives reflex happy 人总难免一死，早晚都是死；一死百了，死人活人都解脱，患者与亲朋皆大欢

4.the lives of their own people, individuals have the right to end their lives, which is opposed to the human rights and personal freedom.人的生命属于自己，个人有权结束生命，这是个人自由和独享的人权

5.we believe that euthanasia is a form of respect for life.安乐死是尊重生命的一种方式。

6.首先，从主观方面来讲，安乐死对于病人自身，是一种减少生命痛苦的方式。人，总是趋利避害的，没有人会说“我要去寻找痛苦，我要去远离快乐”。当一个人处于精神和躯体的极端痛苦之下，当生命的存在已成为一场噩梦，我们难道还要 提及道德和伦理吗？生存这个基本的“长度”都已经不能够维持，还要来谈及生命的宽度，还要去顾及伦理的重量吗？

First,from a subjective point of view.Euthanasia for the patients themselves, is a way to reduce human suffering.People always seek advantages and avoid disadvantages, and no one would say, ”I am going to look painful, I had to go far from happy.“When a person is under extreme suffering in the body and the spirit, when the very existence of life has become a nightmare.Should we mention the moral and ethical?The basic survival of the ”length“ are not able to maintain, but also to talk about the breadth of life,we still have to take into account the weight of ethics?

7.We feel this suffering, we have come with this then you have no choice in the circumstances, we have chosen euthanasia.This is not contempt for life, nor is it moral decline.Instead, it was a time in the lives of torment and suffering to the loved ones around us to the people we love.more acceptable alternative to the road.Therefore, we believe that euthanasia is a form of respect for life.我们感受着这种痛苦，我们体会着这个中滋味，在无法选择的情况下，我们选择了安乐死。这不是对生命的藐视，也不是道德的沦丧。反而，这是一种

在生命面临煎熬和磨难的时候，为我们身边的亲人，为我们爱着的人，选择另一条更容易接受的道路。因此，我方认为，安乐死是尊重生命的一种方式.反对

1.Euthanasia is a rejection of the importance and value of human life 安乐死是拒绝了人类生活的意义和价值

2，”euthanasia" if legal form confirm down, may be some people use to depriving the life of others.In addition, to the understanding of the disease in humans is still very limited circumstances, without legal license and others end life, contrary to the right to live moral principles.“安乐死”如果以法律形式确认下来，可能会被一些人利用，用以非法剥夺他人的生命。另外，在人类对疾病的认识还十分有限的情况下，未经法律许可而结束他人生命，有悖于生存权利的道德准则。

3.Oppose euthanasia people have argued that the euthanasia is a violation of the laws of nature and death against natural behavior, weaken the human overcome the disaster of the strength and courage.反对安乐死合法化的人士则认为，安乐死是违反生老病死自然规律的反自然行为，削弱了人类战胜灾难的力量和勇气。

4.Euthanasia is disguised violations of the right to life 安乐死是变相侵害生命权

第三篇：安乐死 英语辩论

(!)Euthanasia is to kill people.Life is so important for every one.People don’t only live for themselves, but they also live for their families and the society.If they choose to leave the world, they are not responsible for themselves, their families and the society.Euthanasia is disparagement of life.Life is so precious.Patients should cherish their life.They should try their best to prevail incurable disease.Everyone should show basic respect for life.No matter what happens, we should face up to the facts, we should live on with great courage, we should believe in wonder.Nothing is impossible.so we view that Euthanasia should not be legeled(!)Euthanasia stops the medicine developing.If the patients require using euthanasia, doctors won’t try their best to save patients.The medicine will stop progress.If making euthanasia is made legal, patients who use euthanasia will be protected by law.The doctors’ right will be obvious.Doctors are given too much power, and can be wrong or unethical.Patients put their faith and trust in the opinions of their doctor.people abuse euthanasia when it is legalized, it can harm people lives.In the name of euthanasia, carry out committing suicide.Miracle cures or recoveries can occur.You can never underestimate the power of the human spirit.It demeans the value of human life.In this country, human life means something.It could open the floodgates to non-critical patient suicides and other abuses.Any loosening of the assisted-suicide laws could eventually lead to abuses of the privilege.Many religions prohibit suicide and the intentional killing of others.The most basic commandment is “You shall not kill”.Insurance companies may put undue pressure on doctors to avoid heroic measures or recommend the assisted-suicide procedure.Health insurance providers are under tremendous pressure to keep premiums down.Euthanasia can become a means of health care cost containment..Physicians and other medical care people should not be involved in directly causing death.Mercy killing is morally incorrect and should be forbidden by law.It's a homicide and murdering another human cannot be rationalized under any circumstances.Human life deserves exceptional security and protection.Advanced medical technology has made it possible to enhance human life span and quality of life.Palliative care and rehabilitation centers are better alternatives to help disabled or patients approaching death live a pain-free and better life.Family members influencing the patient's decision into euthanasia for personal gains like wealth inheritance is another issue.There is no way you can be really sure if the decision towards assisted suicide is voluntary or forced by others.Mercy killing would cause decline in medical care and cause victimization of the most vulnerable society.Would mercy killing transform itself from the “right to die” to “right to kill”? How would one assess whether a disorder of mental nature qualifies mercy killing? What if the pain threshold is below optimum and the patient perceives the circumstances to be not worthy of living? How would one know whether the wish to die is the result of unbalanced thought process or a logical decision in mentally ill patients? What if the individual chooses assisted suicide as an option and the family wouldn't agree? As to face the parting, helplessness, loss of self-control, fear of death and sorrow and so the majority of patients will experience mental suffering.In this psychological requirement under the “Euthanasia”, we can say that he is reasonable? “According to the study of suicide, suicide and treatable mental illness is intrinsically related, but not the fatal disease, a study found that in 44 patients with advanced cancer, only three thought about suicide, but are there is a serious depression.Another study shows that 85 suicides, only one person suffering from terminal illness, and 90-100% of the suicides were suffering from obvious mental illness.Undeniably, the modern medical practice slow death process, often cited the loss of personal characteristics of patients Mei, dignity, independence and autonomy.However, the expression of active euthanasia as acts of personal autonomy, it is wrong.Reasons:(a)Since active euthanasia need help, then it is not an individual matter, but the open or in the public thing.(B)under the public recognition to self-defense, capital punishment and justice in the form of war, murder, only to defend the life for everyone, not to the benefit of those killed.So, even if death is painful relief, can not be lightly taken away the right to life committed to personal.(C)even if the person's self-determination recognized the right to choose to die, that does not mean the right to ask others to kill themselves, does not include the right to authorize self to kill others.(D)autonomy, including the right of slavery has never been their own, in other words, the right to freedom does not mean the right not to freedom.So to maintain the autonomy, the need to protect life, to give others their right to life is not trampling the principle of maintaining independence.Therefore, individual autonomy and social need and public objectives and values to be consistent.结尾active euthanasia may gradually lose its spontaneity, and thus out of(i)”secret euthanasia“, meaning that without their own consent, to be a doctor euthanized.(Ii)”forced euthanasia“, meaning patients suffering from terminal illness would be coercion to lure choose euthanasia to relieve their families in the economic and psychological pressures, and save limited resources of society, the patients chose to die, do not feel life is a burden or tired of life, but he felt the burden of someone else, and that others dislike.(Iii)”Deputy euthanasia“ means to allow patients who lack capacity to self-determination by the people ”proxy decision“ to euthanasia.(Iv)”Discrimination against euthanasia,“ the crisis is the number of types of patients such as the poverty stricken or belonging to ethnic minorities, may be ”clever“ to force that ”euthanasia“ requirement, the mercy of others.Made ill patients caught in the dilemma of both the opposition between the yield, resulting in additional unnecessary fear and anxiety.The information may be heard: ”Death is terrible!Your best choice of euthanasia.“ of the slip waves, is once the ”euthanasia“ is legalized, its use will inevitably extend to other types of patients but not the dying, if not cure patients, but not incurable disease, then the risk of Alzheimer's disease or brain degradation, even those born with severe disabilities Down syndrome baby..And so on.So, if this argument, once established, will only create panic and fear that they will be forcibly sent to ”euthanasia“ in the ranks.Therefore, I agree Frasen say, ”human life, merely the possibility of error, is enough to completely reject the“ euthanasia.” "

第四篇：安乐死 正方

。但是当我们无力再让生命感受快乐、幸福、尊严时我

们应让这生命结束, 让这痛苦结束。安乐死是结束这种

生命与痛苦的好方法。作为一种生命结束方法, 它应有

其存在的社会基础。

人们在心理上是否接受安乐死是安乐死存在的首 要社会基础。有这样一些统计数据可以说明这一问题。第二军医大学长海医院对313 名不同人群的调查显示: 93.6%的人赞成实施安乐死。其中医务人员赞成为 98.4%, 法学界人士赞成者为90%, 一般90.1%。上海某

大医院530 位危重病人的死亡中, 有28%的绝症病人 是在病人或家属主动要求停止治疗而死亡的。[ 1] 这两组

数据表明: 在观念上大多数人赞成安乐死。在实践上, 基

于对安乐死的理解, 人们已开始实施安乐死。人们在思 想观念上对安乐死的赞同也为安乐死准备了心理条件。

其次, 安乐死还可避免不必要的医药资源的浪费, 使社会有限的医药资源得到更合理的利用。由于人类认

识的局限, 地球资源的贫乏, 使我们的医药资源处于珍

贵而有限的状态。而人类面临的各种致病病毒、细菌的

侵犯却是滚滚而来, 何况我们的生命还面临着来自自然

界的力量(如洪水、地震等)、人类自身行为的危险。面对

这些侵犯与危险, 每一个个体生命显得如此渺小与脆 弱。理所当然, 我们应尽一切力量保护生命。但是当某一

个体生命处于死亡边缘, 忍受着无力克服的痛苦, 现有 的医疗技术已无力挽回其生命的春天, 而这种状态下的

生命维持又需花费极高的医疗代价, 在这种情况下, 用 一种人道的方法结束这种生命与痛苦, 是对社会医药资

源的节约, 可以把这些医药资源应用到更有希望的病人

身上。这样的话, 生命的去与留都是非常伟大的, 有意义 的。

再者, 安乐死对病人来说不是一种伤害, 而是帮助 其摆脱痛苦的煎熬, 维护其生命尊严。身患绝症的病人

承受着常人难以想象的病痛。这种病痛让他们失去了往

日健康时的容颜、快乐、尊严。面对步步逼近的死亡之

神, 他们只能痛苦地等待, 眼睁睁看着这死亡之神残酷

地一点点撕碎这生命之躯, 践踏这生命的尊严。面对这

痛不欲生的生命, 生不如死的生活, 为什么不能做点事

情让他们安乐地死去, 尊严地死去呢? 德国最高法院第 三刑事审判庭庭长、刑法专家克劳斯· 库策1996 年在

对一起医生实施的安乐死案件进行判决时曾指出: 应尽

量地使患者体面地、不受病痛折磨地死去, 不应只为了

让病人多活那么一会儿而让他们忍受那么大的痛 苦。[ 2 ] 据统计我国每年有100 多万人在疾病极度痛苦的

安乐死让人们在生

命的终点最后感受生命尊严——人们可以安详地、舒服

地、无痛苦地离开这个世界。从心理感受的角度来说, 安

乐死让人体验到生命中的人格尊严。人格尊严作为人的

一种基本生存需求在所有的人身权中都可得到体现。从若不是为了敬

重生命, 怎么样死与生命尊严、人格尊严又有什么关系

呢? 所以提倡安乐死决不是轻视生命。

“法定的权利不论是私人的或是国家、市镇等公共的, 原先就称之为自由⋯⋯每一个真正的权 利就是一种自由。” [ 7] 权利即自由, 意味着权利人有意志

自由和行动自由。但自由本身并不是目的, 而是手段、工

具, 自由的目的是获得或满足某种利益需求或求得某得

利益平衡。“一个完整的权利, 其实是由三种相互关联的

具体权利复合而成, 即自由权、请求权、诉权的统一⋯⋯

生命要还应包括

对生命利益的处分权, 这种处分权包括生命安全的处 分, 自愿承受生命危险, 如人体器官的捐献与转让;生命

本身的处分—— 放弃生命, 如安乐死、舍己救人等。至

此, 我们为安乐死找到了权利基础, 即安乐死是权利人

行使生命权中的处分权的表现。

问题是: 生命权中的处分权可否任意行使? 以安乐 死方式行使对生命利益的处分权是否是逃避责任或侵 犯他人或社会公共利益? 在法律领域内任何自由也好, 权利也好都有界限。特别是行使权利中的处分权时就更

应在法律允许的范围内才合法。为什么权利人行使对自

己合法利益的处分权有一定的法律限制呢? 因为, 即使

是纯粹“个人的权利, 不仅包含着本人的利益, 同时还包

含着社会利益和公共秩序的因素⋯⋯因此, 当事人对自 身权利的处分, 应当受到国家干预。” [ 9] 这一认识反映在

法律上表现为: 任何权利都以义务为界限;任何权利人

既是自身利益的权利享有者, 又是他人利益的义务承担 者。就拿生命权来说, 它是专属于权利人的, 但该权利人 的生命中同时还负担着他人的利益即对他人的义务, 且

综上所述, 安乐死是生命权的重要内容, 是生命权 人行使对生命利益处分权的表现, 这是安乐死的权利基

础和法律依据。但是生命利益的处分权不得任意行使, 不得将对生命利益的处分权作为逃避责任或侵害他人 利益和社会公共利益的手段。在法律规定的严格条件下

实施安乐死没有侵犯他人和社会公共利益。

第五篇：辩论-安乐死应不应该合法化 正方

谢谢主席，大家好：

探讨安乐死应不应该合法化的问题之前，让我们先明确两个概念。首先，什么是安乐死？安乐死分为两种，即直接安乐死与延续性安乐死。直接安乐死是指通过药物解除其痛苦，结束其生命。延续性安乐死是指中止维持病人生命的措施，但通过药物缓解其痛苦直至病人自行死亡，但是会随时征询病人意愿，病人可以随时选择继续接受治疗。这两种方式针对的都是处于极大痛苦中的濒死病人，因此安乐死与其说是对生与死的选择，不如说是对死亡方式的选择。其次，什么是合法化？这里的合法化应当是一种授权性规范，即对于公民的正当权益在法律上给予认可和保护，而并非倡导。

下面我方将从情理、法理和程序三个层面论证安乐死应该合法化。

从情理上看。安乐死实质上是一种患者和家属在特殊条件下做出的价值判断和价值选择。对于患者来说，安乐死是以缩短自己的寿命为代价消除或减轻死亡时的痛苦；继续生存则是以忍受剧烈的肉体疼痛为代价延续生命的长度。所以安乐死对患者实际是一种对安乐的死去还是痛苦的活着的判断和选择。对于家属来说，是否同意患者安乐死实际上是以自身情感为出发点做出的一种抉择。如果患者和家属在判断和选择上达成了统一，安乐死对于利益相关者就没有危害性，因而是患者本人一种正当的权益。据调查，安乐死最主要群体是晚期癌症病人。我国每年有160万人患癌症，近130万人死于癌症，癌症死亡率已占死亡人口的1/5。临床上，中晚期的患者往往要忍受巨大的痛苦。如肺癌患者，肺逐渐被癌细胞代替，肺就失去了肺原本的功能。这种病人常常是被活活憋死，生不如死。在这种情况下，从人道主义角度出发，法律没有理由强制人痛苦的活着。

从法理上看。法律在其发展过程中对公民越来越多的合理诉求予以认可和保护，使其成为正当的权利。安乐死建立在包括患者和家属在内的各利益相关方共同的价值判断和价值选择之上，没有社会危害性，并且从人道主义角度看有其重要的存在意义，是一种正当合理的诉求。安乐死合法化体现的是法律对公民意愿的尊重，这也是一种社会进步的证明。

从程序上看。为了防止无意愿安乐死被滥用的可能，彼特·辛格曾提议到：建立一套以登记制度为主的严格程序制度，使得不想被安乐死的病人意愿能被记载，有效遏制无意愿安乐死决定权的滥用。荷兰、澳大利亚等国据此制定出了严谨的程序，规定安乐死的实施必须基于患者真实的、明确的意思要求，而且要经过医疗与司法机构的严格认证与审查。它需要经过：1.申请程序，安乐死的申请应对患者进行医学鉴定，只有在神智清醒的时候以书面形式直接向主治医师提出。2.审查程序，包括专业审查与司法审查两道程序。3.操作程序，要求专职医护人员，近亲属代表和司法机关在场见证4.备案程序。这些程序为安乐死合法化的操作性提供了有力保障。

安乐死在情理和法理上有其正当性，在实施过程中又有一定的程序能够予以保障。我们没有理由无视在绝症中苦苦煎熬的病患对选择死亡方式的权利的诉求，而将安乐死拒绝在合法化的门槛之外。

综上所述我方坚持认为安乐死应该合法化。