安乐死的合法化英语阅读

⑴ 安乐死合法化在荷兰为什么能顺利实施

荷兰是一个给予人极大自由的国家，当然这种允许安乐的行为也会导致民族自残，影响国家发展。别的国家禁止也不意味着不先进。

⑵ 谁会英语,知道安乐死合法化拥护团体去世国际组织的创建者Philip NiIschke的联

知道安乐死合法化拥有团体去是国际主义的现状壮现状

⑶ 支持安乐死的理由,要用英语回答,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)

译文：

安乐死是医学界最有争议的问题之一。正如上面所示的画所描绘的，一位晚期癌症病人病入膏肓，请求医生们实施安乐死。但医生们看上去十分尴尬，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，医助自杀可以减轻垂死病人不堪忍受的痛苦。他们主张，只要医生开药是为了合法的医疗目的，那么即使病人使用这种药物加速了死亡，医生也没有做什么违法的事。其他人则强烈反对医助自杀。他们坚持认为，医生无权给病人开足以控制痛苦的药物，如果那样做会加速死亡的话。他们的结论是，医生帮助垂危病人结束生命是违法的。

依我看，医生有义务帮助垂死病人缓解病痛。我还认为，如果医生延长了垂死病人不必要的痛苦的话，那他们应该受到惩处。总之，我赞成安乐死。

⑷ 安乐死在哪些国家是合法的

安乐死哪些国家是合法的
荷兰，比利时，澳大利亚

目前，积极安乐死只在荷兰和比利时合法。瑞士和美国俄勒冈州的法律则允许间接或消极安乐死。美国俄勒冈州是世界上第一个承认安乐死合法的地方。1994年，该州通过一项法令，允许医生为只有半年存活期的绝症病人提供他们要求的致死药物。自这项法令1997年生效以来，已有200名绝症病人在该州实行了安乐死。美国加利福尼亚州目前正在仿效俄勒冈州制定类似的法令。

世界上第一个将积极安乐死合法化的国家是荷兰，比利时则紧随其后。2002年9月23日，荷兰取消了对有条件安乐死实施者的刑罚。目前，比利时和荷兰都准备就婴儿和痴呆患者安乐死问题立法。

瑞士允许消极安乐死，并成立了一个帮助他人死亡的专门协会。英国上院正在审理一项允许自愿安乐死的法案。在日本，有条件的安乐死于1995年得到最高法院许可。哥伦比亚则于1997年立法确认安乐死是临终病人的一项权利。

法国青年樊尚·安贝尔的母亲曾帮助儿子安乐死，这促使法国议会于2005年通过一项法令，给予没有希望治愈或处于垂死阶段的病人选择死亡的权利。

澳大利亚北部地区曾短期承认安乐死合法。有关法令于1996年7月生效，但于1997年3月被澳大利亚联邦议会废止。

在全球各地，有很多人为安乐死合法化奔走呼号，但也有很多人坚决反对安乐死。在反对安乐死的人看来，直接或间接地造成他人死亡在道德上是不可接受的。

⑸ 英语辩论赛主持人台词 题目是《安乐死是否应该合法化》

安乐死源于希腊文，原意是“快乐的死亡”或“尊严的死亡”。英文解释为：无痛苦处死患不治之症而又非常痛苦者和非常衰老者。而中国学者们给安乐死下的定义则是：患不治之症的病人在危重濒死状态时，由于精神和躯体的极端痛苦，在病人或家属的要求下，经过医生的认可用人为的方法使病人在无痛苦状态下度过死亡阶段而终结生命全过程。 应当说，从上个世纪30年代以来，关于“安乐死是否应该合法化”的争论，在全世界就从来没有停止过。可是到目前为止，也只有荷兰、比利时等少数几个国家，在国家的法律上完全承认了安乐死的合法化……
希望采纳

⑹ 安乐死应该合法化吗

• 我觉得安乐死应该合法化。

• 首先，我认为安乐死不具有社会危害性。因而是一种仁慈的行为，是对患者选择死亡方式和时间权利的尊重和保障，对病人本身来说，有利无害；对病人家属来说，能从沉重的精神压力和经济负担中解脱出来；对医生来说，可以将有限的精力放在更有生命意义和生存可能的病人身上；对社会来说，还能减少不必要的人力药物消耗，将其用于急需的地方，实现社会资源的合理配置。

• 其次，安乐死体现了对生命尊严的维护和对生命权的尊重。人并不是仅仅是一个生物人，更重要的是他是社会人。生命既是神圣的，同时生命更是有质量和价值的。人类生命的尊严就体现在生命的质量和价值上。因身患绝症而没有任何生存的希望，且处于巨大的身心痛苦之中的病患，其生命已无质量可言，对他们来说，维护其生命意味着承受无尽的痛苦，病人的生命尊严在无尽的痛苦中丧失殆尽，更不用说生命的价值了。

• 再者，安乐死有助于患者的痛苦和患者家属的负担。医生的职责是不但要治愈病人，而且还要减轻他的痛苦和悲伤，这样做，不但会有利于他健康的恢复，而且也可能当他需要时使他安逸地死去。”而安乐死正是帮助解除病人痛苦的最佳方法，也是医生职责的所在之处，不对安乐死予以肯定和认可，这对于病人和家属是多大的一种残忍。
  

⑺ 英语辩论赛，安乐死是否合法化

给您一点参考资料：
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 安乐死合法化

在中国自己是不可以随意处置自己的身体的，所以自杀也是不合法的，如果让别人帮助你那么对方就成为杀人犯了。所以安乐死在中国不合法。上海律师孙学龙希望能够帮到你。

⑼ 你认为安乐死是否应该在中国合法化

个人觉得应该，最起码可以给人自由选择生死的权利，例如身患重病的人，有些人身患绝症，又不想继续痛苦的活下去，安乐死对他们是个不错的选择，再有就是身边没有亲人照顾的人，最起码他们可以选择自己的死亡时间，总比最后无人知晓的死在家中要好。其实只要做好审核和签好协议，安乐死的存在是有益无害的。

⑽ 对安乐死合法化的认识。为什么主要国家对此持保守态度。

这种事情必须保守，因为现在还没有有效的方法来防止这种事情被滥用。
如果被滥用的话，那么可能会造成自己和他人的巨大损失，监管做不到位的话不如保守一点！