安樂死的合法化英語閱讀

⑴ 安樂死合法化在荷蘭為什麼能順利實施

荷蘭是一個給予人極大自由的國家，當然這種允許安樂的行為也會導致民族自殘，影響國家發展。別的國家禁止也不意味著不先進。

⑵ 誰會英語,知道安樂死合法化擁護團體去世國際組織的創建者Philip NiIschke的聯

知道安樂死合法化擁有團體去是國際主義的現狀壯現狀

⑶ 支持安樂死的理由,要用英語回答,急

Mercy killing is one of the most controversial issues in the world of medicine. As the picture given above depicts, a late-stage cancer patient is terminally-ill, asking the doctors for mercy killing. But the doctors look deeply embarrassed, feeling helpless because they are 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 that physician-assisted suicide can relieve dying patients of unbearable pain and suffering. They maintain that as long as a doctor prescribes a drug for a legitimate medical purpose, he has done nothing illegal even if the patient uses the drug to hasten death. Others are strongly opposed to physician-assisted suicide. They contend that a doctor has no right to give a patient sufficient medication to control his pain if that may hasten death. They conclude that it is illegal for doctors to help the dying end their lives.

As far as I』m concerned, doctors have a ty to help dying patients to alleviate their pain and suffering. I also agree that doctors deserve to be punished if they prolong the needless suffering of their terminally-ill patients. In short, I am in favor of mercy killing. (207 words)

譯文：

安樂死是醫學界最有爭議的問題之一。正如上面所示的畫所描繪的，一位晚期癌症病人病入膏肓，請求醫生們實施安樂死。但醫生們看上去十分尷尬，感到無能為力，因為他們不知道該怎麼辦。

這幅畫確實發人深省。它暗示，人們在對待安樂死上看法不一致。有些人認為，醫助自殺可以減輕垂死病人不堪忍受的痛苦。他們主張，只要醫生開葯是為了合法的醫療目的，那麼即使病人使用這種葯物加速了死亡，醫生也沒有做什麼違法的事。其他人則強烈反對醫助自殺。他們堅持認為，醫生無權給病人開足以控制痛苦的葯物，如果那樣做會加速死亡的話。他們的結論是，醫生幫助垂危病人結束生命是違法的。

依我看，醫生有義務幫助垂死病人緩解病痛。我還認為，如果醫生延長了垂死病人不必要的痛苦的話，那他們應該受到懲處。總之，我贊成安樂死。

⑷ 安樂死在哪些國家是合法的

安樂死哪些國家是合法的
荷蘭，比利時，澳大利亞

目前，積極安樂死只在荷蘭和比利時合法。瑞士和美國俄勒岡州的法律則允許間接或消極安樂死。美國俄勒岡州是世界上第一個承認安樂死合法的地方。1994年，該州通過一項法令，允許醫生為只有半年存活期的絕症病人提供他們要求的致死葯物。自這項法令1997年生效以來，已有200名絕症病人在該州實行了安樂死。美國加利福尼亞州目前正在仿效俄勒岡州制定類似的法令。

世界上第一個將積極安樂死合法化的國家是荷蘭，比利時則緊隨其後。2002年9月23日，荷蘭取消了對有條件安樂死實施者的刑罰。目前，比利時和荷蘭都准備就嬰兒和痴呆患者安樂死問題立法。

瑞士允許消極安樂死，並成立了一個幫助他人死亡的專門協會。英國上院正在審理一項允許自願安樂死的法案。在日本，有條件的安樂死於1995年得到最高法院許可。哥倫比亞則於1997年立法確認安樂死是臨終病人的一項權利。

法國青年樊尚·安貝爾的母親曾幫助兒子安樂死，這促使法國議會於2005年通過一項法令，給予沒有希望治癒或處於垂死階段的病人選擇死亡的權利。

澳大利亞北部地區曾短期承認安樂死合法。有關法令於1996年7月生效，但於1997年3月被澳大利亞聯邦議會廢止。

在全球各地，有很多人為安樂死合法化奔走呼號，但也有很多人堅決反對安樂死。在反對安樂死的人看來，直接或間接地造成他人死亡在道德上是不可接受的。

⑸ 英語辯論賽主持人台詞 題目是《安樂死是否應該合法化》

安樂死源於希臘文，原意是「快樂的死亡」或「尊嚴的死亡」。英文解釋為：無痛苦處死患不治之症而又非常痛苦者和非常衰老者。而中國學者們給安樂死下的定義則是：患不治之症的病人在危重瀕死狀態時，由於精神和軀體的極端痛苦，在病人或家屬的要求下，經過醫生的認可用人為的方法使病人在無痛苦狀態下度過死亡階段而終結生命全過程。 應當說，從上個世紀30年代以來，關於「安樂死是否應該合法化」的爭論，在全世界就從來沒有停止過。可是到目前為止，也只有荷蘭、比利時等少數幾個國家，在國家的法律上完全承認了安樂死的合法化……
希望採納

⑹ 安樂死應該合法化嗎

• 我覺得安樂死應該合法化。

• 首先，我認為安樂死不具有社會危害性。因而是一種仁慈的行為，是對患者選擇死亡方式和時間權利的尊重和保障，對病人本身來說，有利無害；對病人家屬來說，能從沉重的精神壓力和經濟負擔中解脫出來；對醫生來說，可以將有限的精力放在更有生命意義和生存可能的病人身上；對社會來說，還能減少不必要的人力葯物消耗，將其用於急需的地方，實現社會資源的合理配置。

• 其次，安樂死體現了對生命尊嚴的維護和對生命權的尊重。人並不是僅僅是一個生物人，更重要的是他是社會人。生命既是神聖的，同時生命更是有質量和價值的。人類生命的尊嚴就體現在生命的質量和價值上。因身患絕症而沒有任何生存的希望，且處於巨大的身心痛苦之中的病患，其生命已無質量可言，對他們來說，維護其生命意味著承受無盡的痛苦，病人的生命尊嚴在無盡的痛苦中喪失殆盡，更不用說生命的價值了。

• 再者，安樂死有助於患者的痛苦和患者家屬的負擔。醫生的職責是不但要治癒病人，而且還要減輕他的痛苦和悲傷，這樣做，不但會有利於他健康的恢復，而且也可能當他需要時使他安逸地死去。」而安樂死正是幫助解除病人痛苦的最佳方法，也是醫生職責的所在之處，不對安樂死予以肯定和認可，這對於病人和家屬是多大的一種殘忍。
  

⑺ 英語辯論賽，安樂死是否合法化

給您一點參考資料：
Those who are against euthanasia state that euthanasia is morally andethically wrong, but this is not the end of the argument. The argument alsoincludes that euthanasia is not necessary when palliative, a medical specialtyfocused solely on pain, stress, and symptom relief, is so advanced (Center toAdvance Palliative Care, 2009). In most cases, the desire to die or suicidalthoughts have been shown to be clinical depression which is treatable. Attemptsto legalize euthanasia did not occur until the 20th Century, and history doesnot provide an adequate example to why euthanasia should be legalized. Theargument against euthanasia includes the slippery slope, that once the door ofeuthanasia is open, it becomes increasingly easier for ethics and laws to beedited, changed, and "updated" to become increasingly liberal indefinition and application. By definition, euthanasia is illegal and immoral.Euthanasia is the ending of a person's life and presents a threat to all peoplewith disabilities, chronic physical and mental illnesses, the elderly, andother vulnerable portions of the population (Euthanasia Prevention Coalition,2006).
One of the misconceptions put forth by the "right to die"proponents is that those against euthanasia and assisted suicide believe that aterminal patient must be kept alive by any means available, which is not true.The Catholic Church (1994, 1997), states that: "Discontinuing medicalproceres that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionateto the expected outcome can be legitimate...the refusal of"over-zealous" treatment. Here one does not will to cause death;one's inability to impede it [death] is merely accepted. The decisionsshould be made by the patient if he is competent and able or, if not, by thoselegally entitled to act for the patient...Even if death is thought imminent,the ordinary care owed to a sick person cannot be legitimately interrupted. Theuse of painkillers to alleviate the sufferings of the dying, even at the riskof shortening their days, can be morally in conformity with human dignity ifdeath is not willed as either an end or a means, but only foreseen and toleratedas inevitable. Palliative care is a special form of disinterested charity. Assuch it should be encouraged. "
Some supporters of euthanasia will make the claim that the terminally illare a burden to their family or to society. Illnesses such as quadriplegia,Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, and other physical and mental disabilities do createemotional and financial burdens, because the person is dependent on others forcare, and for now, these "burdens to society" are safe in ourcountry. The Netherlandsare already known for having legalized euthanasia. The practice has beenquietly expanding from 'just' the terminally ill and elderly to includeinfants. Worse yet, Dutch euthanasia rules do not require the patient to beterminally ill, but judged only on whether or not a "livable life" isattainable. The guidelines for making this determination are known as theGroningen Protocol. According to Smith, (2006),
The subsequently compiled Groningen Protocol--which is expected to form thebasis for the official approval of Dutch pediatric euthanasia--similarlycreated categories of killable babies: infants "with no chance ofsurvival," infants with a "poor prognosis and are dependent onintensive care," and "infants with a hopeless prognosis,"including those "not depending on intensive medical treatment but for whoma very poor quality of life... is predicted." In other words, infanteuthanasia is not restricted to dying babies but can be based on predictedserious disability.
Proponents for human euthanasia claim that restrictions, laws, andgovernment oversight will provide the necessary guidelines to preventeuthanasia from being abused; however, one look at euthanasia in the Netherlandsproves that this is far from the truth. Euthanasia has been legalized for morethan a decade in the Netherlands, and according to Hendin (2000), doctors therehave become complacent about the use of euthanasia, and numerous incidents arecited in which euthanasia was used against the patient's will.
Being alive is not equivalent to living: on this premise, both sides of thedebate about euthanasia can agree; however, the right to decide when deathtrumps life is not man's decision to make. The physicians in the Netherlands aretaking liberties and playing God with the lives of patients, often without thepatient's knowledge or consent. The example set forth by the Netherlandsclearly demonstrates that euthanasia does not provide balance to the medicaladvancements that can postpone death via life sustaining machines; instead, ittips the balance in favor of physicians, nurses, and families, who are tired ofcaring for the patient, believe the patient's life is of no value, and in whichpatients are given no choice. The Netherlands is the example of why eventhough euthanasia may be legal, sanctioned by legislators, and performed bydoctors, it can, is, and will continue to be abused.

⑻ 安樂死合法化

在中國自己是不可以隨意處置自己的身體的，所以自殺也是不合法的，如果讓別人幫助你那麼對方就成為殺人犯了。所以安樂死在中國不合法。上海律師孫學龍希望能夠幫到你。

⑼ 你認為安樂死是否應該在中國合法化

個人覺得應該，最起碼可以給人自由選擇生死的權利，例如身患重病的人，有些人身患絕症，又不想繼續痛苦的活下去，安樂死對他們是個不錯的選擇，再有就是身邊沒有親人照顧的人，最起碼他們可以選擇自己的死亡時間，總比最後無人知曉的死在家中要好。其實只要做好審核和簽好協議，安樂死的存在是有益無害的。

⑽ 對安樂死合法化的認識。為什麼主要國家對此持保守態度。

這種事情必須保守，因為現在還沒有有效的方法來防止這種事情被濫用。
如果被濫用的話，那麼可能會造成自己和他人的巨大損失，監管做不到位的話不如保守一點！