安乐死_英语辩论

第一篇：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.” "

第三篇：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

第四篇：英语辩论-安乐死合法化

安乐死合法化

正方：

We think it’s necessary.On one hand, we can save our limiting medical resources for those who need treatment than any other people.On the other hand, we can keep patients from endless paint.我们认为这是有必要的。一方面，我们可以节约有限的医疗资源给其他更需要的治疗的病人。另一方面，我们可以解脱这些受着无尽的痛苦的病人。

补充观点：

1.Euthanasia can release the stress of the society, if the patients can’t do any contribution.如果那个病人无法做出任何贡献，那么安乐死可以减轻社会的负担。

2.Euthanasia can free the patients who are under heavy paint.安乐死可以解脱那些正承受着巨大痛苦的病人。

3.A person’s life belongs to himself, he has access to end his life.一个人的生命属于他自己，他有权结束自己的生命。

反方：

I think we shouldn’t make euthanasia legal.Otherwise, some people may commit suicide through this way, which offer them an easy way to die.In addition, it can be an legal way to deprive(剥夺)people’s life, for those who have evil intentions.So, I don’t agree this point.补充观点：

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

1.The poor will truly be killed by poverty through euthanasia, because of no money for treatment.穷人会真正地被贫穷以这种形式给杀死，因为没钱治疗。

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

第五篇：安乐死 辩论

正方：安乐死应当合法化

安乐死的含义： 安乐死（euthanasia）一词源于希腊文，意为无痛苦的死或安详的死。而在今天国外的临床实践中，安乐死则是在一定条件下实行的，总体上包括5个条件： 1.必须是“患不治之症的病人” 2.必须是“处于垂危濒死状态”

3.必须是为了解脱病人在精神和躯体上的极端痛苦 4.必须有病人的遗嘱或口头表达以及家属的要求

5.必须用人为方式使病人在无痛苦状态下度过死亡阶段，从而终止生命。我们对安乐死在中国合法化的支持，同样是建立在这些必备条件的基础上的。支持安乐死合法化的原因：

其一，据我所知，那些身患绝症、可能随时死亡、每天接受放疗和化疗的人，他们的身心都处于极其痛苦的状态，对于他们而言，尽管仍对生活和生命充满渴望，但是却也对死亡充满无奈和恐惧。当医学上无法挽回他们的死亡的命运而他们又不得不遭受病痛的折磨时，他们有权利选择结束自己的生命，以及结束生命的方式，让自己在生命的最后时刻安详、无痛的死去。这实质上是出于对病患的一种人性关怀，是设身处地的一种考虑。我们可以换位思考，当我们什么都不能做躺在病床上等待死亡时，拿什么去谈什么生命的意义和价值呢？恐怕剩下的就只有身体上的折磨，还有心灵上的挣扎。对于认为“医学正在进步，实行安乐死是对生命轻易放弃和不负责任”的观点，本身就没有从患者本身出发。我们并不否认医学正在进步，但是至少在较短时间内还无法攻克癌症等不治之症的难关也无法消除病患与日俱增的痛苦，安乐死则可以在病人无法承受时提供一种解脱痛苦的方式。另外，我们不能从生命的长短和是否存在来衡量一个人的价值。

其二，当我们明知道已经无力回天时，实际上对病人在医疗上付出的费用也会给家庭和亲人造成一定的负担。尽管我们不能因此就对重症患者不闻不问，但是当病患本身已经提出要求安乐死已解决自身的痛苦时，在今天医疗资源有限的情况下，的确可以为其他更有希望治愈的患者提供更多生存的机会，也可以为自己的家庭减轻负担和压力。也许在病人离开人世时家人是痛苦的，但是看着病人痛苦的死去却也只能增加亲人的痛。从这些意义上，安乐死并非不负责任。巴金、邓颖超、王选等有识之士也都赞同安乐死的做法。

其三，如果将安乐死合法化进行立法保护，也许会出现社会上担忧的借用安乐死犯罪的状况，但是这毕竟只是少数状况，解决这个问题我们可以通过其他途径，比如严格限制安乐死药物的流入社会；规范实行安乐死的程序，在病患、家属和医院之间协调一致后再确定是否实行；经过法定部门的监督公证等。环环相扣，就可以将不法行为最大化的避免。此外，正如之前提到过的，首要前提是病人是患有不治之症且病人主动要求，这样也可防止滥用。考虑到实行安乐死对个人、家庭和社会的利大于弊，我们坚定地支持实行安乐死合法化。也许未来实行的过程中会出现一些瓶颈，但是就像对于汽车，我们不能说因为汽车会污染环境，就把汽车从社会中淘汰、排斥汽车，因为汽车在带来种种问题时，更多的是给我们带来了更多的便利。而安乐死，在规范使用时，带来更多的是慰藉，带走的是浮躁与苦痛。

在20世纪30年代已经有国家在法律上承认安乐死的地位。2001年荷兰成为世界上第一个使安乐死合法化的国家。

安乐死的实质是生命终结的处置行为，我赞同其合法性的理由有以下两点。

1.安乐死的行为不构成故意杀人罪。犯罪的本质是具有社会危害性，而安乐死不具备这一点。其次，由于我国未明确规定安乐死，因此法无明文规定不为罪，不构成刑事违法性。2.安乐死符合社会主义的伦理道德和人道主义原则，体现了对患者人权与选择权的尊重。其二，它减轻了沉重的家庭负担，也一定程度上节约了社会资源。以上就是我赞同安乐死合法化的理由。

安乐死不是一个从“生”到“死”的转换，而是一个死亡由“痛苦”到“安乐”的转变，它并不是倡导损害自己的身体或自杀，而是出于一种真正的热爱生命、珍惜生命、保护生命。在这个科学技术飞速发展的时代，先进的医疗技术可以延续病人的生命，继续维持病人“活着”的状态，但这样的“活着”是毫无质量、毫无尊严的。对于身患绝症、不堪忍受病痛折磨的患者而言，运用先进医疗技术延长其“活着”的状态并非延长他的生命，而是延长了他痛苦死亡的过程。

波西﹒布里奇曼在他的《死亡日记》中写道：“一个社会让一个人自己做这件事是不人道的。或许，这是我能够对自己做这件事的最后一天了。

生命是神圣的，任何人都没有权利侵害他人的生存权，但同时，人选择庄严的死亡方式的权利也不应该被剥夺。生命的神圣是通过生命质量和价值来体现的，一个苟延残喘地活着的人，他的生命质量是低下的，对他人和对社会只能具有很小甚至是负的价值。出于对神圣的生命的尊重，人也应该要有维护生命质量和选择死亡方式的权利。安乐死作为一种文明的生死观，它让人们正视死亡，维护了生命神圣和生命质量，是社会进步的表现，体现了人道主义的价值追求。

对于患者的家属而言，在求医的慢慢长路上，他们照顾一个毫无希望的病人需要投入大量的时间和精力，承担相当重的精神负担；同时，当患者进入生命末期时的医药费是非常昂贵的，这对于普通家庭而言是一个沉重的经济负担。家属出于道义责任、碍于社会舆论、法律制度等原因无法接受安乐死，甚至向病人隐瞒其病情，自身背负着经济和精神负担。若安乐死能得以施行，在消除病人痛苦的同时也解除了家属的负担。

对于社会而言，在当前我国医疗资源相当有限的情况下，大量的医疗资源被用于维持已无治疗价值的病人的生命，政府也为此支付了巨额的医疗保险费。而全国还有许多地方医疗制度仍不健全，许多医疗产品的研发需要更多资金，广大农村地区缺少医务工作者和医疗器械，有希望治愈的人被迫放弃治疗，这使大量社会财富被浪费，违背了对生命同等尊重的原则。从这个角度看来，安乐死的实施有利于医疗资源的合理配置，使更多人受益。

当然，以上辩护是基于患者自愿接受安乐死的前提，否则，无论病人有无治愈的可能，只要他还有求生欲望，就没有任何人有权将他置于死地，绝不能以所谓大多数人的利益而剥夺少数人的正当权益，这一点是没有疑问的。只有基于尊重生命的安乐死才符合整个人类生存质量提高和根本利益，符合人类的道德进步。

传统观念认为，医生的职责在于救死扶伤，执行安乐死、帮助病人结束生命似乎违背了医生的职业道德。随着时代的进步与现代医疗水平的发展，传统的观念显现出一定的局限性。救死扶伤的确是医生的职责所在，但帮助患者减轻痛苦也是医生的职责。对于一个患有绝症并且痛苦万分的患者，道德的做法应是解除其痛苦，而非延长其生命来增加他的痛苦。死是人生必然，一些身患绝症而无法忍受病痛的濒死患者选择安乐死是其愿望和权利，医生按其愿望和权利帮助他实施安乐死，符合人权主义和人道主义原则。

此外，有反对者提出：现代医学是在不治之症不断得到救治的过程中发展的，安乐死的施行将阻碍医学技术的发展。这种说法显然并不合理。即便安乐死最终实现合法化也并不意味着所有的患者都会选择安乐死，随着公民意识的提升，越来越多的安乐死患者会愿意将遗体捐献给医疗机构，这无疑会为医学研究提供不同阶段的病理样本，促进医学发展。再者，如果为了医学的发展而剥夺患者维护生命质量的权利，这显然是不符合伦理学规范的。

反方：安乐死不应当合法化

从伦理角度讲，每个生命体都有存在的价值,不应该因为个人的意识而将其剥夺。安乐死与这一伦理是相悖的。生活的磨难我们应该勇敢地接受，人是社会型的动物，轻易放弃自己的生命是对自己的不负责，也是对亲朋好友的不负责。随着现代社会医学的不断进步，我们有理由相信，现在那些所谓的绝症或许明天就能攻克，不要轻易放弃自己的生命。

另外，就中国现有的法律来讲，安乐死的实行很可能会触犯“故意杀人罪”。我国法律上的故意杀人罪，是指故意非法剥夺他人生命的行为。实施安乐死的行为对象是濒临死亡的病人，虽然患者濒临死亡，但这样的病人仍然是法律意义上的“人”，他们的生命仍然要受到法律的保护。在安乐死故意的判断上，行为人为他人实施安乐死，行为人明知自己的行为必然会发生他人死亡的结果，并且希望发生这样的结果，行为人的主观上属于直接故意。就这两点来判断，故意杀人罪是可以成立的。

德国格丁根大学曾经做过一份调查，他们对荷兰出现的7000起安乐死案例进行了分析。在这些案例中，41％的死亡者是由家属提出希望结束患者痛苦而实施安乐死的。而其中的11％，患者死亡之前仍然神志清醒，而且有能力自己做出决定，但是没有人问他们愿意选择活着还是死去。我觉得，这差不多就是安乐死面临的最大问题。中国有句俗话：“百病床前无孝子。”我们不能排除有些子女因为某些原因，为自己病床上的父母选择安乐死。而且，安乐死的合法化一定是需要一批合格的医护工作者的，这里的合格不单单是专业技术上的合格，更重要的是道德情操上的。一旦遇上一些无良医生，安乐死就成了变相的杀人工具。

1.从生命伦理上来讲，对病人自己来说，生命可贵的，是圣神的，轻易的结束生命，是逃避和不负责任的行为。例如在西方的基督教就明确规定了在任何情况下人都不能夺取自己或者他人的生命，这是对神的不敬。而抛开宗教，生命同样是值得我们好好珍惜的，因为痛苦而结束生命在很多时候都是一种懦弱的逃避行为。另外，人不是赤裸裸的活在世界上，他带有社会性。例如，人会有着各种各样的亲属关系，自己的死去很可能对于家人亲人是一种莫大的伤害。而对于医生，这样一个救死扶伤的职业，在“救死”不能的情况下，如果选择主动结束病人的生命，这也是与其职业道德相悖的。

2.从法律上讲，人的种种权利中，生命权是最重要的，是第一位的，根据现行法律，生命权的被剥夺只有在几种极特殊的情况下。否则，是要负相关法律责任的。而安乐死，恰恰是由于一个人丧失了行为能力，需要依靠他人的帮助来实现自己死亡的愿望。在这里，这种安乐死与故意杀人罪之间的界限难以判定。主观上，都是他人出于故意的目的，行为上，都实施了杀害他人的行为，造成的后果也是一样的，即死亡。但是，两者的唯一区别就在于，被害人的主观意志上。在当前，主观意志是一个非常难以判定的事。特别对于是一些意识不清的病人，又该如何判定他的主观意识呢？

3.安乐死还会带来一些不良的社会后果：比如，老百姓的看病难的问题、群众的医保问题远远都还没有得到根本性地解决。今后，是否会形成贫穷百姓因无钱看病和医治，只能被迫选择“安乐死”呢？现在很难下定论。

4.从技术上来说，在当下的医疗水平下，安乐死是否真正能够做到百分之百的在免除病人痛苦的情况下结束他的生病还有待论证。与此同时，乐死并非晚期重症病人解脱痛苦的惟一方法，我们完全可以选择其他的替代技术。协和医院一名麻醉科主任说过，麻醉医学技术完全可以做到使重症患者无痛或减少觉大部分的疼痛。

安乐死不同于自杀，安乐死的完成需要两个人的共同协作。病重病危的患者如果想选择结束自己的生命，他可以选择跳楼拒食等自杀的方式。而选择安乐死，则使得家人和医生的介入了自杀的过程。所以，能不能帮助他人进行安乐死等同于对于面对自杀者应不应该救助的问题。

我们注意到，一旦家庭和医生介入了，问题就变得复杂起来。首先，医生和家庭是否构成犯罪？医生在医院中面对将死之人有着救死扶伤的义务，现在不仅不履行这个义务，反而以一个终结生命的形象出现。维系家庭的纽带是亲情，但个体的经济也是联系在一起的。如果一个家庭为了自身的经济利益而抛弃其中的成员，那么安乐死合法化就为这类人大开了方便之门。

其次是，安乐死真的是为了结束痛苦嘛？我觉得这是一个伪命题。人一旦死去，便什么感觉都没有了，这时候痛苦与欢乐又有何意义？很多的患者选择安乐死是因为被病痛折磨怕了，觉得丧失尊严了，但是安乐死并不能解决“痛”的问题。相信现代的医疗技术已经能够使得患者在失去意识的时候接受治疗，这些技术可以代替安乐死在这方面的作用。最后，安乐死可能对于有益于个别贫困家庭的经济状况。但是于整个社会来说，医疗这方面的收益极小的。反而因此产生的社会文化成本却是极大的。

病人或者家属要求医生实施安乐死的前提条件是病人得了不治之症，这就在法律上造成了一个假象。什么叫不治之症，是医学无能，所以就采取不医治的方式结束病人的生命。由此就产生了安乐死的两种方式。一是消极安乐死，即医生采取不医治的方式放任病人死亡；二是积极安乐死，即医生没有解决病人痛苦的办法所以采取一些手段让病人早死亡。这两者的先决条件都是医生没有办法医治疾病。另一方面，病人要求医生实施安乐死以让自己能够早点解除痛苦，这看似是合理的。但是病人是在什么样的状况之下说出这样的话呢？患有不治之症的患者是否能够对于自己的意思表示进行很好的控制呢？或者说能否明白自己在讲些什么？我们没有办法验证的。

第一，得了不治之症他的想法能同正常人的想法一样吗？第二，可能病到此种程度患者的意识根本就是不清晰的。从社会角度来讲，实施安乐死后可以节约很大的社会成本减轻社会负担；在伦理学的角度上讲，人总是会死的，也是说得过去的；但是唯独法律的这道最低限的坎没有办法逾越。

还有一个方面，法律考虑的根本问题是安乐死有没有被外用的可能性。恰恰是在世界上仅有的两个安乐死合法化的国家即荷兰和比利时，他们的安乐死被滥用的比例极高。有百分之一被滥用的可能性，法律就要采取措施杜绝这种可能性。法律的原则就是要通过制度坚决杜绝这种可能性的发生，而不是无法杜绝就消极对待。为什么刑法规定诸如追诉时效等等问题，就是为了体现我们的刑法一个坏的方面的可能性都不放过。像是荷兰这类国家，它之所以同意安乐死的合法化有两个前提条件，一是这些国家的人均寿命比我国要高得多，所以对于疾病的忍耐力比较差，因此需要安乐死来减轻痛苦；二是它们是宗教国家，它们认为在宗教的总领之下安乐死被滥用的可能性很低；第三从经济学的角度考虑，此类病人急需治疗是浪费社会资源，因此不如实施安乐死来节约社会成本。因此安乐死得以合法化。但是问题同时出现，例如李利用安乐死来骗取保险金，争夺遗产等等。并且滥用安乐死的用途不完全是谋杀，还可以被医生利用来推卸医疗事故。病人病情恶化也可能是医生在治疗途中出现了医疗事故等原因，为了掩盖真相也可能采取安乐死的办法来保全自己。并且任何不治之症都是相对的。很久之前的肺结核是绝症，但现在已经司空见惯了。我们现在的肝癌、艾滋病等，他们的存活时间也越来越久。因此在医生不能够预计疾病的可控程度的时候不能够轻易决定是否实施安乐死。不然，我们的医生究竟是医人还是杀人呢？

而对于《长眠地中海》电影中的情况，朱老师认为可以作为一个特例。这个主角瘫痪在床几十年，他很痛苦，没有康复的希望了，但他并没有不久于人世。他的思想自由，没有抑郁症，也一直在家人的照顾和关怀下。所以当他提出希望安乐死时，这个决定是主动自愿的，朱老师认为可以予以批准。但是对于国家来说，不批准出于更多的为社会的考虑。因为一旦开了这样的口子，将给他人造成巨大的压力。这些不批准的原因在第三个问题中将会重点谈到。所以我们可以在他申请的过程中设置种种的障碍，让他很难得到一个安乐死的批准。这样对于社会来说，可能相对的，影响会好些。

那么在判定实施安乐死的条件时，国家可以组织特定的委员会进行判定：患者是否还患有抑郁症，是否遭受家人嫌弃，如果周围的环境可以得到改善的情况下，他是否会打消安乐死的念头等等。

2赞同什么样的安乐死的实施方式？

朱老师认为首先当然要是自由且自愿同意的，完全由医生实施的主动安乐死或者医生协助式的自杀都可以。然后针对医生协助式的，可以进行一个安乐死非刑事化的举措会比较好。3是否赞同安乐死合法化？

朱老师表示：从长远的趋势来看，安乐死的合法化是一个好的举措，好的政策。因为确实有很多人到癌症晚期，不是怕死，而是怕疼。如果他们不久于人世，给他们一个安乐的，有尊严的死去，肯定比折腾来折腾去，两三个月的痛苦的挣扎的生活质量来得高。她当初涉及这个问题的时候，曾经到各个医院询问情况，发现有的人，在她认为是不符合安乐死的条件的，却也实施了安乐死。如果合法化了，就会规范化。但是随着她对生命伦理这一行研究的深入，她就发现，因为这个不仅仅是病人的问题，还牵涉到整个社会，整个制度的问题。

其中最重要的问题是实施安乐死会给社会带来压力。即使社会有了全民医保制度，对于一些病重的，垂危的，没有能力医治的人，也会造成一种压力，好像到了那个时候，就必须死。也会给社会造成一种感觉，好像医学上不值得医治的人，都要去安乐死。但是有的人原本就是觉得好死不如赖活着，如果一旦安乐死合法化，就给他们造成了很大的压力。这样就造成了对价值多元化的抹杀。因此这样的在受到不正当影响下做出的抉择是不合乎伦理的，而外界，如医生、委员会等很难对其加以判断。这就是大多数国家，甚至一些发达地区，医保制度已经健全的地区，仍然不愿意使安乐死合法化的主要原因。

①我们的医保制度不健全，医疗仍旧市场化，个人和家庭要负担很大一笔医疗费用，都是从自己口袋里掏出来的。很大一部分人看不起病，小病拖成大病，大病就等死，或者因病致贫，搞得倾家荡产。如果安乐死合法化，可能导致人们寻求一个解决问题的捷径。有了全额医保，例如前几年有人提出在上海地方立法，推行全额医保，就可能使安乐死可行。因为确实有一部分人躺着浪费了医疗资源，自己也很痛苦。

②另外，中国的临终关怀，或者护理机构也不健全。可能导致病患出于对亲人的考虑，不愿造成他们的复旦，而产生实行安乐死的想法。但是此时他们并不是自由且自愿的做出选择的，这就并不符合安乐死的条件却可能实施了安乐死。

③即使在中国全民医保了，也还是有问题。虽然传统文化尊崇孝道，但是在中国农村，仍有许多人老无所养，受虐待的老人。如果现在就将安乐死合法化，那些老人就会很悲惨。他们自己可能会有压力觉得自己不能下地劳动了，成为子女负担了，也可能被子女逼走上一条死路。

④中国医疗机制中可能还存在腐败贪污。可能通过行贿，受贿，使人犯罪，或者使不需要安乐死的，无辜的人死掉了。

⑤更紧迫的问题是要对脑死亡的定义进行立法。4安乐死合法化之后是否会对医疗的探索造成阻碍？

朱老师认为这个不是问题。如果安乐死真正处于由于病人自愿的行为，那么也不是所有人会选择安乐死。安乐死的合法化或非刑事化，并不是安乐死的普遍化，这是两个概念。然后很多人还是愿意采取治疗，与病魔做抗争的。这只是社会支持的两种态度，一种是积极的抗争，一种是太累了，就想安安静静的死去了。而且在小范围的人中，特定的情况下，在非常苛刻的条件下，才可以实施安乐死的。我们可以控制一个时间范围，只有两三个月时间可以活的人可以安乐死，而还有两三年可活的人就不能实施安乐死。或者没有疼痛的也不予实施。这时，医学方面依然可以进行研究进步。5对于已经实施安乐死非刑事化的地方怎么看？

朱老师认为她没有进行过课题，然后从她目前的一些了解来看，她认为那些地方做得很好的。例如荷兰，他们又有医保，医疗护理也好。又有非常严格的标准。比如需要自己提出申请，两个以上医师进行验证，需要有一些等待期等等。

采访内容：

1.您是否支持“安乐死”？为什么？

我是支持“安乐死”的。我昨天看过一期中央电视台的新闻调查节目，说的是浙一医院的医生陈作兵，他也是医学博士，在得知父亲身患恶性肿瘤晚期时，没有让父亲化疗，而是让他安享最后的人生。肿瘤病人，到了晚期确定治不好了，再给他治疗其实是增加他的痛苦。我们医学不是包治百病的，我们要认清这个挑战，即治不好怎么办，与其花治疗在最后的六个月，为什么不花在以前呢。可以看到肿瘤病人的治疗，这不仅仅是钱的问题，在治疗之后他们的生命质量会大打折扣。其实对很多绝症患者来说，他们是强烈要求“安乐死”的。我外公就是有这种情况，因为年纪很大了，在床上不能动也看不到希望，就想“安乐死”，事实上在社会上有相当一部分老人8、9十岁了，治疗只能延缓死亡而已，这种情况我觉得“安乐死”是一种比较好的选择。

3.“安乐死”涉及到哪些伦理上的问题？ 我觉得会涉及到文化背景的问题。随着我们中国人受教育的提高以及医疗知识的普及，我相信“安乐死”还是会得到大家的接受。在中国，宗教因素的色彩不是很重，因为中国大多数人还是不信教的。

5.您觉得“安乐死”在未来的趋势是不是就会被逐渐认可？

我觉得不一定。在不同的国家文化中会不一样。一个国家的理念，它的教育程度会影响到对“安乐死”的接受。关于“安乐死”，我觉得应该可以看看我前面说的那期新闻调查栏目，看看专业人士是怎么看的。同样地，也是在浙江，一所医院里的肿瘤患者受不了治疗的痛苦，就从十几楼上跳下来，这是因为他痛苦但不能得到“安乐死”，只能跳楼。“安乐死”是有需要的，但是我们的法律制度没有跟上。

6.从医学的角度来说，怎样才能判断一个人可以“安乐死”？

这个不仅仅需要医生的判断，而且还要得到本人和家属的判断。从医学上讲，能不能治疗，以我现在的水平治疗的效果有多大，可以由一组有水平的教授做出判断，确诊以后可以让病人和家属做出选择。还有一点，医生要如实地告诉病人病情，虽然告诉病人病情很残忍，但是确实有些病我们是没有办法治疗的，告诉病人病情不是残忍，而是一个实话实说的过程。而我们现在的很多病人治疗花了很多冤枉钱，治疗的效果却不好，人财两空，这也是医患矛盾加剧的原因之一。医生应该告诉患者这个病能不能治，治疗的把握有多大，治疗的风险有多大，治了以后有哪些后果，不治有哪些后果，然后让病人和病人家属做一个判断和选择。而我们医院现在更多地是从经济收益考虑的，这是违背规律的。7.如果医生和本人都同意“安乐死”，家属不同意，那应该怎么办？

那应该尊重家属。我们的法制还不健全，即使在国外，“安乐死”也需要一个专家组鉴定。

8.就目前来看，我们国家什么时候能够实施“安乐死”？

全国性的话应该是很难的，但是就地区而言，像我们上海应该还需要20几年。首先是我们中国人的健康素养，现在还是有一些人，愚昧地认为到医院就会治好病，至少能够减少他的痛苦。广州一个卫生局的副局长说过，到医院去，三分之一是治好的，三分之一是治疗后不好不坏的，还有三分之一是治疗后病情加重的。