安樂死應該合法化的10大原因(下)

anasia is properly regulated.

5.安樂死得到合理監管

Those who oppose euthanasia often cite the horror stories of patients being euthanized without consent or for unethical or impure reasons. Granted, the history of euthanasia is not without its fair share of horror stories and because of the gravity of its practice, it does need to be regulated. However, this is not reason enough to say that it cannot be properly regulated. Developed nations like the Netherlands have legalized euthanasia and have had only minor problems from its legalization. Any law or system can be abused, but that law and system can always be refined to prevent such abuse from happening. In the same way, it is possible to properly and effectively regulate euthanasia as various first world countries have done. More so because the process of euthanasia itself as it is being argued here, requires competent consent from the patient. It is important to consider the protection of both the physicians as well as the patients. The critical element in the regulation of euthanasia will be determining the line between what is considered to be euthanasia and what is considered to be murder.

反對安樂死的人經常引用一些未經同意、或者由於不道德的原因而安樂死的病人的恐怖故事。誠然，安樂死的歷史發展與駭人聽聞的事件相隨，而且，也因其操作關乎人命，所以的確需要規範安樂死。但是，這也並不能充分說明安樂死得到合理監管。一些發達國家，比如荷蘭，已經將安樂死合法化，而且在合法化過程中只出現過一些小問題。任何法律和制度可以被濫用，但是法律和制度又總是能阻止此類濫用的出現。同時，就像衆多第一世界國家所取得的成效一樣，我們可以對安樂死進行合理有效的監管。由於安樂死本身就具有爭議性，因此更多的監管措施需要取得病人的同意。同時，保護醫生和病人也非常重要。安樂死監管中至關重要的一點是劃清安樂死與謀殺的界限。

yone has a right to a good death, therefore a good death must not be denied to those who want one.

4.每個人都有安然離世的權利，所以對於那些希望安樂死的人來說，這種死法萬不能被否決

Nobody thinks of their death and desires it to be extremely painful or horrible. Rational human beings desire a good, dignified end to an ideally long and fruitful life. Circumstance, like luck, may not always be in your favor. It may not even be a terminal disease, which is so frequently used in pro-euthanasia arguments. It can be as savage as a freak accident or as simple as falling down the stairs to put you in a world of excruciating pain. While this is never to be wished on anyone, for those that have had the misfortune of being diagnosed with a terminal or painfully debilitating disease must have a choice out of it. Do we, who so desire a good death, have the right to judge others' state when we know nothing of it? Do we have the right to compare their experiences day by day, having experienced none of them, and say that they don't deserve to die with dignity, the way they want to die? The answer is of course, no, we have no right to deny them the dignified death that we ourselves naturally desire. To do so would be selfish and we would effectively be imposing our own desires on that person, thereby restricting their freedom to self-determine even if it is in the most basic sense.

沒有人希望自己在極度痛苦中死去。凡是有理智的人都希望能有尊嚴地去往極樂世界。但是現實，比如意外狀況，並不總是如你願。病人所患的疾病可能不是絕症，這個論點經常被用來反駁安樂死的支持者。或許是一場突如其來的車禍，或許是從樓梯上摔下來，都可能給你帶來極度的痛苦。沒有人希望這樣的事發生在自己身上，那些被不幸診斷爲絕症、或令人痛苦的虛損性疾病的人必須做出選擇以擺脫痛苦。渴望安然離世的我們在什麼都不知道的情況下是否有權力評判其他人的狀況？我們是否有權力將他們每一天的病情進行比較，沒有切身經歷過他們的痛苦，就評判他們平靜地離世是不值得的？答案當然是否定的，我們沒有權力去否定他們有尊嚴的死法，而那種死法正是我們所希望的。這種做法是自私的，這是將我們自己的意願強加在別人身上，所以即使是在最惡劣的情況下，我們也要保護每個人自我決定的自由。

anasia does not shorten lifespans by as much as is portrayed.

3.安樂死並不如傳聞般縮短人的壽命

Many arguments opposing euthanasia are based on the premise that the patient's life should be preserved because of the possibility of their recovery. Statistics however, paint a different picture. A Dutch survey conducted in 1991 showed that 86% of Euthanasia cases only shortened the life of the patient by a maximum of 1 week. The standard time it shortened their life was by a few hours only. This clearly shows that terminal illness is statistically terminal. Add in the fact that in the majority of these cases, the patients were in extreme agony, the numbers show you that terminally ill patients are using euthanasia to end the suffering where they would have had near impossible chances of recovery. This is not the same as the ideal painted by opponents of euthanasia, wherein the patient may have a chance to survive and make a miraculous recovery. It is because the numbers are so heavily indicative of euthanasia as an out for terminally ill patients in terrible agony that it must be allowed as an option to end their suffering.

許多反對安樂死觀點基於這樣的前提：我們應該竭力挽救病人的生命，因爲還有康復的機會。然而統計數據向我們展示了不一樣的情況。1991年，荷蘭一項調查顯示，86%的安樂死病例最多隻縮短了病人一星期的壽命。一般情況下，病人的壽命只縮短了幾小時。這一數據清楚地顯示了，絕症是致命的。事實上，大多數安樂死病例中，病人處於極度的痛苦中，數據顯示身患絕症的病人用安樂死來結束他們幾乎沒有復原可能性的痛苦處境。安樂死反對者們假設的畫面是病人有生還的機會，能奇蹟般的恢復，而事實和他們的假設相反。因爲這些數據如此有力地證明，既然安樂死可以作爲絕症病人擺脫痛苦的方式，那麼，備受病魔折磨的病人應該享有是否選擇安樂死的權利。

anasia saves lives.

2.安樂死挽救生命

Sound shocking? Consider this: a 2005 study of euthanasia in the Netherlands found that 0.4% of all euthanasia was done without consent from the patient. By the time this study was done, euthanasia had been legalized in the Netherlands. Now consider another study done in 1991 which was done before euthanasia was legalized which indicated that 0.8% of euthanasia done in the Netherlands was done without the patients consent. This shows that the legalization of euthanasia actually had the reverse of the expected effect and cut the unacceptable practice of no consent euthanasia in half. By these numbers, euthanasia has in fact saved lives since it now provides a protected and regulated framework with which doctors must first obtain explicit consent before conducting euthanasia. This same framework makes it more difficult and less grey for those seeking to perform euthanasia with impure or irresponsible intentions.

看到標題，小夥伴們驚呆沒？不妨先看以下實例：2005年一調查顯示，在荷蘭施行的安樂死病例中，有0.4%的安樂死未經患者本人同意。在該調查結束前，實施安樂死在荷蘭已經合法化。再看1991年的另一項調查，那時，安樂死在荷蘭尚未取得立法許可。調查結果顯示，在實施過程中，有0.8%的安樂死執行未經患者本人同意。對比兩個調查結果，我們可以看到安樂死合法後的結果和人們預想相反；且未經患者同意便實施安樂死的情況減半。以上數據說明，安樂死確實能挽救生命，因爲合法後，實施安樂死可以受到法律保護，又爲實施安樂死提供規範操作流程，醫生在實施安樂死前，必須得到病人明確同意。安樂死操作流程規範化，借安樂死之名行謀殺之實的便無機可乘。

Hippocratic oath supports euthanasia.

1.安樂死後盾——希波克拉底醫派誓言

Most people misinterpret the Hippocratic oath as being against euthanasia. The key element of the oath is that the physician must protect the wellbeing of their patient, hence the maxim "do no harm" commonly interpreted to be a summation of the oath. Most interpretations of the "harm" element are however taken to literally refer to the patient's life. It can be argued that harm in this case refers to the wellbeing of the patient, which includes his life. However in cases where it is a choice between intense suffering or death, it can be argued that the physician is doing more harm to the patient by not allowing them to die. While this argument can go either way, updated interpretations of the Hippocratic oath do include a segment that concerns taking life as well as preserving it:

很多人認爲希波克拉底醫派誓言與安樂死背道而馳。誓言的核心是醫生必須盡力讓病人康樂安寧，因此"禁止傷害"這一信條常被概括爲希波克拉底醫派誓言的總綱。對"傷害"一詞的理解，多數人僅僅停留在字面表層含義，即對病人生命的傷害。但這裏的"傷害"，指的無疑是"病人康樂安寧"這種狀態，生命當然包含於其中。然而，遇到"選擇繼續忍受病痛的劇烈折磨"或"一死了之"這種情況，有一點可以肯定，比起讓病人活着，醫生不協助病人實施安樂死對其傷害更大。當然，這個問題仁者見仁，尚無定論。現代版的希波格拉底醫派誓言的確包含討論生死的文段：

"Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty." --Written in 1964 by Louis Lasagna, Academic Dean of the School of Medicine at Tufts University

"盡我一生，尊生重死，憑良心履行醫職。病人康復，永作最先思慮。若已盡全力，仍致病人喪生，我也要勇於承擔責任，心存敬畏，勇敢面對。" ——1964年，由Tufts大學醫學院院長Louis Lasagna 撰寫

From a philosophical aspect, man seems to have some pathological fear of death, so much so that he views intense suffering, until he is actually suffering himself, as preferable to death. Such fear of death tends to create a mythical status of death in our minds that we often forget that to die is also to exist as a human being. It is the finite nature of our lives brought about by the immovable and inevitable wall of death that gives every second of our time spent on this earth its most powerful purity. Death, like life exists as part of our cycle of human existence.

從哲學角度看，一個人目睹太多人承受無盡的病痛折磨後，會對死亡產生近乎病態的恐懼，所以當他自己無法擺脫病痛折磨時，情願選擇一死了之。對死亡的恐懼，讓死亡成爲我們心中一個謎團，使我們忘了死和生一樣，也是人類生活的一部分。正因死亡不可避免，才讓人類有限生命裏的每分每秒活得相當純粹。生寄死歸，乃人類存在的兩種固有形式。

審校：嘉珈Alison 來源：前十網