第一篇：英語安樂死辯論正方

英語安樂死正方辯論

Good morning ,everyone;my name is Yang.I am the first debater on positive side.Here are my opinions.，F(xiàn)irst 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，F(xiàn)outh , 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：安樂死_英語辯論

(!)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.結(jié)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 安樂死是醫(yī)學(xué)界最有爭(zhēng)議的問題之一。正如上面所示的視頻所描繪的，一位晚期患病母親病入膏肓，請(qǐng)求兒子實(shí)施安樂死。但兒子且為此獲罪，感到無能為力，因?yàn)樗麄儾恢涝撛趺崔k。這幅畫確實(shí)發(fā)人深省。它暗示，人們?cè)趯?duì)待安樂死上看法不一致。有些人認(rèn)為他是對(duì)的，但其他的不這樣認(rèn)為，現(xiàn)在讓我們聽聽大家的不同觀點(diǎn)

贊成

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.如果一個(gè)人失去了生存能力，對(duì)社會(huì)沒有了貢獻(xiàn)，也就失去了生命的意義，減少對(duì)別人的倚賴和對(duì)社會(huì)的負(fù)擔(dān)。

2.the complete elimination of euthanasia patients can be painful diseases, mental stress and depression thinking exists.安樂死可以徹底消除病人的疾病痛苦，精神壓力和思想懮愁

3.a person bound to die sooner or later die;One hundred dead, the living dead are free, patients and relatives reflex happy 人總難免一死，早晚都是死；一死百了，死人活人都解脫，患者與親朋皆大歡

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.人的生命屬于自己，個(gè)人有權(quán)結(jié)束生命，這是個(gè)人自由和獨(dú)享的人權(quán)

5.we believe that euthanasia is a form of respect for life.安樂死是尊重生命的一種方式。

6.首先，從主觀方面來講，安樂死對(duì)于病人自身，是一種減少生命痛苦的方式。人，總是趨利避害的，沒有人會(huì)說“我要去尋找痛苦，我要去遠(yuǎn)離快樂”。當(dāng)一個(gè)人處于精神和軀體的極端痛苦之下，當(dāng)生命的存在已成為一場(chǎng)噩夢(mèng)，我們難道還要 提及道德和倫理嗎？生存這個(gè)基本的“長(zhǎng)度”都已經(jīng)不能夠維持，還要來談及生命的寬度，還要去顧及倫理的重量嗎？

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.我們感受著這種痛苦，我們體會(huì)著這個(gè)中滋味，在無法選擇的情況下，我們選擇了安樂死。這不是對(duì)生命的藐視，也不是道德的淪喪。反而，這是一種

在生命面臨煎熬和磨難的時(shí)候，為我們身邊的親人，為我們愛著的人，選擇另一條更容易接受的道路。因此，我方認(rèn)為，安樂死是尊重生命的一種方式.反對(duì)

1.Euthanasia is a rejection of the importance and value of human life 安樂死是拒絕了人類生活的意義和價(jià)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.“安樂死”如果以法律形式確認(rèn)下來，可能會(huì)被一些人利用，用以非法剝奪他人的生命。另外，在人類對(duì)疾病的認(rèn)識(shí)還十分有限的情況下，未經(jīng)法律許可而結(jié)束他人生命，有悖于生存權(quán)利的道德準(zhǔn)則。

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.反對(duì)安樂死合法化的人士則認(rèn)為，安樂死是違反生老病死自然規(guī)律的反自然行為，削弱了人類戰(zhàn)勝災(zāi)難的力量和勇氣。

4.Euthanasia is disguised violations of the right to life 安樂死是變相侵害生命權(quán)

第三篇：安樂死 英語辯論

(!)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.結(jié)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：安樂死 正方

。但是當(dāng)我們無力再讓生命感受快樂、幸福、尊嚴(yán)時(shí)我

們應(yīng)讓這生命結(jié)束, 讓這痛苦結(jié)束。安樂死是結(jié)束這種

生命與痛苦的好方法。作為一種生命結(jié)束方法, 它應(yīng)有

其存在的社會(huì)基礎(chǔ)。

人們?cè)谛睦砩鲜欠窠邮馨矘匪朗前矘匪来嬖诘氖?要社會(huì)基礎(chǔ)。有這樣一些統(tǒng)計(jì)數(shù)據(jù)可以說明這一問題。第二軍醫(yī)大學(xué)長(zhǎng)海醫(yī)院對(duì)313 名不同人群的調(diào)查顯示: 93.6%的人贊成實(shí)施安樂死。其中醫(yī)務(wù)人員贊成為 98.4%, 法學(xué)界人士贊成者為90%, 一般90.1%。上海某

大醫(yī)院530 位危重病人的死亡中, 有28%的絕癥病人 是在病人或家屬主動(dòng)要求停止治療而死亡的。[ 1] 這兩組

數(shù)據(jù)表明: 在觀念上大多數(shù)人贊成安樂死。在實(shí)踐上, 基

于對(duì)安樂死的理解, 人們已開始實(shí)施安樂死。人們?cè)谒?想觀念上對(duì)安樂死的贊同也為安樂死準(zhǔn)備了心理?xiàng)l件。

其次, 安樂死還可避免不必要的醫(yī)藥資源的浪費(fèi), 使社會(huì)有限的醫(yī)藥資源得到更合理的利用。由于人類認(rèn)

識(shí)的局限, 地球資源的貧乏, 使我們的醫(yī)藥資源處于珍

貴而有限的狀態(tài)。而人類面臨的各種致病病毒、細(xì)菌的

侵犯卻是滾滾而來, 何況我們的生命還面臨著來自自然

界的力量(如洪水、地震等)、人類自身行為的危險(xiǎn)。面對(duì)

這些侵犯與危險(xiǎn), 每一個(gè)個(gè)體生命顯得如此渺小與脆 弱。理所當(dāng)然, 我們應(yīng)盡一切力量保護(hù)生命。但是當(dāng)某一

個(gè)體生命處于死亡邊緣, 忍受著無力克服的痛苦, 現(xiàn)有 的醫(yī)療技術(shù)已無力挽回其生命的春天, 而這種狀態(tài)下的

生命維持又需花費(fèi)極高的醫(yī)療代價(jià), 在這種情況下, 用 一種人道的方法結(jié)束這種生命與痛苦, 是對(duì)社會(huì)醫(yī)藥資

源的節(jié)約, 可以把這些醫(yī)藥資源應(yīng)用到更有希望的病人

身上。這樣的話, 生命的去與留都是非常偉大的, 有意義 的。

再者, 安樂死對(duì)病人來說不是一種傷害, 而是幫助 其擺脫痛苦的煎熬, 維護(hù)其生命尊嚴(yán)。身患絕癥的病人

承受著常人難以想象的病痛。這種病痛讓他們失去了往

日健康時(shí)的容顏、快樂、尊嚴(yán)。面對(duì)步步逼近的死亡之

神, 他們只能痛苦地等待, 眼睜睜看著這死亡之神殘酷

地一點(diǎn)點(diǎn)撕碎這生命之軀, 踐踏這生命的尊嚴(yán)。面對(duì)這

痛不欲生的生命, 生不如死的生活, 為什么不能做點(diǎn)事

情讓他們安樂地死去, 尊嚴(yán)地死去呢? 德國最高法院第 三刑事審判庭庭長(zhǎng)、刑法專家克勞斯· 庫策1996 年在

對(duì)一起醫(yī)生實(shí)施的安樂死案件進(jìn)行判決時(shí)曾指出: 應(yīng)盡

量地使患者體面地、不受病痛折磨地死去, 不應(yīng)只為了

讓病人多活那么一會(huì)兒而讓他們?nèi)淌苣敲创蟮耐?苦。[ 2 ] 據(jù)統(tǒng)計(jì)我國每年有100 多萬人在疾病極度痛苦的

安樂死讓人們?cè)谏?/p>

命的終點(diǎn)最后感受生命尊嚴(yán)——人們可以安詳?shù)?、舒?/p>

地、無痛苦地離開這個(gè)世界。從心理感受的角度來說, 安

樂死讓人體驗(yàn)到生命中的人格尊嚴(yán)。人格尊嚴(yán)作為人的

一種基本生存需求在所有的人身權(quán)中都可得到體現(xiàn)。從若不是為了敬

重生命, 怎么樣死與生命尊嚴(yán)、人格尊嚴(yán)又有什么關(guān)系

呢? 所以提倡安樂死決不是輕視生命。

“法定的權(quán)利不論是私人的或是國家、市鎮(zhèn)等公共的, 原先就稱之為自由??每一個(gè)真正的權(quán) 利就是一種自由?！?[ 7] 權(quán)利即自由, 意味著權(quán)利人有意志

自由和行動(dòng)自由。但自由本身并不是目的, 而是手段、工

具, 自由的目的是獲得或滿足某種利益需求或求得某得

利益平衡?！耙粋€(gè)完整的權(quán)利, 其實(shí)是由三種相互關(guān)聯(lián)的

具體權(quán)利復(fù)合而成, 即自由權(quán)、請(qǐng)求權(quán)、訴權(quán)的統(tǒng)一??

生命要還應(yīng)包括

對(duì)生命利益的處分權(quán), 這種處分權(quán)包括生命安全的處 分, 自愿承受生命危險(xiǎn), 如人體器官的捐獻(xiàn)與轉(zhuǎn)讓;生命

本身的處分—— 放棄生命, 如安樂死、舍己救人等。至

此, 我們?yōu)榘矘匪勒业搅藱?quán)利基礎(chǔ), 即安樂死是權(quán)利人

行使生命權(quán)中的處分權(quán)的表現(xiàn)。

問題是: 生命權(quán)中的處分權(quán)可否任意行使? 以安樂 死方式行使對(duì)生命利益的處分權(quán)是否是逃避責(zé)任或侵 犯他人或社會(huì)公共利益? 在法律領(lǐng)域內(nèi)任何自由也好, 權(quán)利也好都有界限。特別是行使權(quán)利中的處分權(quán)時(shí)就更

應(yīng)在法律允許的范圍內(nèi)才合法。為什么權(quán)利人行使對(duì)自

己合法利益的處分權(quán)有一定的法律限制呢? 因?yàn)? 即使

是純粹“個(gè)人的權(quán)利, 不僅包含著本人的利益, 同時(shí)還包

含著社會(huì)利益和公共秩序的因素??因此, 當(dāng)事人對(duì)自 身權(quán)利的處分, 應(yīng)當(dāng)受到國家干預(yù)?！?[ 9] 這一認(rèn)識(shí)反映在

法律上表現(xiàn)為: 任何權(quán)利都以義務(wù)為界限;任何權(quán)利人

既是自身利益的權(quán)利享有者, 又是他人利益的義務(wù)承擔(dān) 者。就拿生命權(quán)來說, 它是專屬于權(quán)利人的, 但該權(quán)利人 的生命中同時(shí)還負(fù)擔(dān)著他人的利益即對(duì)他人的義務(wù), 且

綜上所述, 安樂死是生命權(quán)的重要內(nèi)容, 是生命權(quán) 人行使對(duì)生命利益處分權(quán)的表現(xiàn), 這是安樂死的權(quán)利基

礎(chǔ)和法律依據(jù)。但是生命利益的處分權(quán)不得任意行使, 不得將對(duì)生命利益的處分權(quán)作為逃避責(zé)任或侵害他人 利益和社會(huì)公共利益的手段。在法律規(guī)定的嚴(yán)格條件下

實(shí)施安樂死沒有侵犯他人和社會(huì)公共利益。

第五篇：辯論-安樂死應(yīng)不應(yīng)該合法化 正方

謝謝主席，大家好：

探討安樂死應(yīng)不應(yīng)該合法化的問題之前，讓我們先明確兩個(gè)概念。首先，什么是安樂死？安樂死分為兩種，即直接安樂死與延續(xù)性安樂死。直接安樂死是指通過藥物解除其痛苦，結(jié)束其生命。延續(xù)性安樂死是指中止維持病人生命的措施，但通過藥物緩解其痛苦直至病人自行死亡，但是會(huì)隨時(shí)征詢病人意愿，病人可以隨時(shí)選擇繼續(xù)接受治療。這兩種方式針對(duì)的都是處于極大痛苦中的瀕死病人，因此安樂死與其說是對(duì)生與死的選擇，不如說是對(duì)死亡方式的選擇。其次，什么是合法化？這里的合法化應(yīng)當(dāng)是一種授權(quán)性規(guī)范，即對(duì)于公民的正當(dāng)權(quán)益在法律上給予認(rèn)可和保護(hù)，而并非倡導(dǎo)。

下面我方將從情理、法理和程序三個(gè)層面論證安樂死應(yīng)該合法化。

從情理上看。安樂死實(shí)質(zhì)上是一種患者和家屬在特殊條件下做出的價(jià)值判斷和價(jià)值選擇。對(duì)于患者來說，安樂死是以縮短自己的壽命為代價(jià)消除或減輕死亡時(shí)的痛苦；繼續(xù)生存則是以忍受劇烈的肉體疼痛為代價(jià)延續(xù)生命的長(zhǎng)度。所以安樂死對(duì)患者實(shí)際是一種對(duì)安樂的死去還是痛苦的活著的判斷和選擇。對(duì)于家屬來說，是否同意患者安樂死實(shí)際上是以自身情感為出發(fā)點(diǎn)做出的一種抉擇。如果患者和家屬在判斷和選擇上達(dá)成了統(tǒng)一，安樂死對(duì)于利益相關(guān)者就沒有危害性，因而是患者本人一種正當(dāng)?shù)臋?quán)益。據(jù)調(diào)查，安樂死最主要群體是晚期癌癥病人。我國每年有160萬人患癌癥，近130萬人死于癌癥，癌癥死亡率已占死亡人口的1/5。臨床上，中晚期的患者往往要忍受巨大的痛苦。如肺癌患者，肺逐漸被癌細(xì)胞代替，肺就失去了肺原本的功能。這種病人常常是被活活憋死，生不如死。在這種情況下，從人道主義角度出發(fā)，法律沒有理由強(qiáng)制人痛苦的活著。

從法理上看。法律在其發(fā)展過程中對(duì)公民越來越多的合理訴求予以認(rèn)可和保護(hù)，使其成為正當(dāng)?shù)臋?quán)利。安樂死建立在包括患者和家屬在內(nèi)的各利益相關(guān)方共同的價(jià)值判斷和價(jià)值選擇之上，沒有社會(huì)危害性，并且從人道主義角度看有其重要的存在意義，是一種正當(dāng)合理的訴求。安樂死合法化體現(xiàn)的是法律對(duì)公民意愿的尊重，這也是一種社會(huì)進(jìn)步的證明。

從程序上看。為了防止無意愿安樂死被濫用的可能，彼特·辛格曾提議到：建立一套以登記制度為主的嚴(yán)格程序制度，使得不想被安樂死的病人意愿能被記載，有效遏制無意愿安樂死決定權(quán)的濫用。荷蘭、澳大利亞等國據(jù)此制定出了嚴(yán)謹(jǐn)?shù)某绦?，?guī)定安樂死的實(shí)施必須基于患者真實(shí)的、明確的意思要求，而且要經(jīng)過醫(yī)療與司法機(jī)構(gòu)的嚴(yán)格認(rèn)證與審查。它需要經(jīng)過：1.申請(qǐng)程序，安樂死的申請(qǐng)應(yīng)對(duì)患者進(jìn)行醫(yī)學(xué)鑒定，只有在神智清醒的時(shí)候以書面形式直接向主治醫(yī)師提出。2.審查程序，包括專業(yè)審查與司法審查兩道程序。3.操作程序，要求專職醫(yī)護(hù)人員，近親屬代表和司法機(jī)關(guān)在場(chǎng)見證4.備案程序。這些程序?yàn)榘矘匪篮戏ɑ牟僮餍蕴峁┝擞辛ΡＵ稀?/p>

安樂死在情理和法理上有其正當(dāng)性，在實(shí)施過程中又有一定的程序能夠予以保障。我們沒有理由無視在絕癥中苦苦煎熬的病患對(duì)選擇死亡方式的權(quán)利的訴求，而將安樂死拒絕在合法化的門檻之外。

綜上所述我方堅(jiān)持認(rèn)為安樂死應(yīng)該合法化。