安樂死應該合法化的10大原因(上)

Euthanasia, from the Greek word meaning "good death", is the practice of assisted suicide with the intention of relieving pain and suffering. Euthanasia is also known as mercy killing or physician assisted suicide. Like all things that deal with life and death, it has been a controversial subject of debate due to its seeming infringement of a person's fundamental right to live. As a law, voluntary euthanasia is accepted in some countries, including some states in the United States and provinces in Canada. Euthanasia is also one of the most actively researched and debated subjects in modern bioethics. Surveys taken in the United States indicate that an estimated 46% of physicians agree that voluntary euthanasia should be allowed for certain situations, with 41% disagreeing altogether and 14% believe it to be circumstantial. Below are the key arguments for euthanasia, which highlight why it is our right as human beings as well as the benefits it presents.

安樂死又名無痛死亡或醫生協助自殺，它源於希臘文，意爲"善終"，即通過協助自殺緩解疼痛和苦難。由於涉及人類基本的生存權利，安樂死跟其他對待生命和死亡的事情一樣，也是飽含爭議的話題。已經有一些國家從立法層面接受安樂死，其中就包括美國和加拿大的一些州省。在現代生命倫理學領域，安樂死也是飽受爭議的主題和研究的熱門方向之一。美國一項調查顯示，約有46%的醫生認爲在特定的情況下應當同意實施自願安樂死，而41%的醫生則完全持反對意見，另外的14%認爲應當根據具體情況而定。下面羅列一些關於安樂死的主要觀點，重點闡釋安樂死作爲人類權利的原因及其帶來的好處。

le have the right to die.

10.人們有選擇死亡的權利

Often, the discussion revolves around the right to life; anti-euthanasia proponents argue that euthanasia infringes on a person's fundamental right to live. What they fail to see is that our "life" as human beings implies death. Without death, we do not have "human life" by its very definition. Like black and white or two sides of a coin, human life cannot occur without death. Therefore for those that argue that every man has the fundamental right to live, they unknowingly also agree that every man has the fundamental right to die.

關於安樂死的討論通常圍繞着生存權展開，反對者常有的說辭是：安樂死踐踏了人類基本的生存權利。他們會忽略死亡是我們人生的歸宿，如果沒有死亡，"生存"將無法定義。如同黑白相對、硬幣具有正反面一樣，人類生命的誕生與消逝本來就是一個整體。因此，那些支持每個人都有基本生存權利的人們還沒意識到自己也同意一個觀點：每個人都有選擇死亡方式的基本權利。

Because we can determine the course of our lives by our own will, we have the right to live our lives and determine our own course. Naturally it follows that the same self-determining capacity we have as human beings also gives us the fundamental right to determine how we die. It is also important to consider that the right to life has no say over the right to die. The right to live and the right to die are two separate, although related rights. They are also mutually exclusive in the sense that the right to live concerns itself only with self-determined life and ends with the right to die. The right to die on the other hand begins where life ends in death. While you live, you exercise your right to life; when your life ends, you exercise your right to die. It is important to consider that we refer to self-determined or natural death and not death resulting from someone directly removing from you your life, thereby restricting your right to live. If such significant weight in this sense is given to our right to live, should we not also give equal weight to our right to die.

我們可以自己決定生活的歷程，我們有活得痛快的權利，我們可以規劃自己生命的航向。自然地，人類自我決定的能力也賦予我們決定如何死亡的基本權利，需要強調的是，生存的權利並不高於選擇死亡的權利。生存權和死亡權是相互獨立而又相互關聯的。生存權關乎自我選擇生活而死亡權關乎自我選擇生活的結束，在這個意義上二者是相互排斥的。從另一方面來看，選擇死亡的權利在人們行將就木時開始。當你活着時，你行使的是生存權；當你的生命走時到終點，你行使的是選擇死亡的權利。需要強調一點，我們這裏談論的是自殺或自然死亡而非命喪他手而被剝奪生存權利。我們如此重視保障自身生存的權利，那麼，對於死亡權利的尊重是不是也應該置於同樣的高度？

le have the explicit right to choose.

9.選擇權是人的基本權利

Beyond the philosophical implications of man's right to live or die lies man's explicit and fundamental right to choose. Everything is touched by this explicit right, from what you will have for breakfast to what you will believe, what your opinions are and what you do with your life. The society that man has built is founded on this very right, and evolves because our inherent nature is explored. Regardless of the outcome, no one can question our right to free will. The right to choose is fundamental and applies to all elements of "human life", which by the nature of human life, includes the right to choose how you die. As an example, a terminally ill individual who is currently under significant pain may choose to die with dignity, as is his right. To deny him this is to deny him his personal autonomy and is an act that is trespassing on his humanity. While concepts such as dignity are defined by social majority, an individual, possessing all the rights of a human being, may perceive a dignified death to be preferable to constant suffering. He may decide on euthanasia, and this choice should be available to him. Very simply, this is his right to choose, as equally as he made his choices when faced with circumstances in life. It cannot be questioned should he decide to act on it. In the case of euthanasia, we simply request assistance to facilitate this right of choosing how to exit this world.

拋卻哲學範疇的生存權和死亡權不談，人們應明白"選擇"是其生而爲人的基本權利。一個人應知道選擇權與一切事物息息相關，從你早餐要吃什麼到你的信仰，從你的意見到你的生活。人類社會構建在這一特殊權利的基礎上，社會的進步則依託於人類熱衷探索的內在本質。無論結果如何，沒有人可以質疑我們思想自由的權利。選擇是我們的基本權利，存在於"人類生活"的方方面面。這一權利體現人的本性，包括選擇死亡方式的權利。舉個例子，一個身患絕症的人在長期忍受劇烈疼痛的情況下可以選擇有尊嚴地死去，這是他的權利。而否認他具有選擇死亡的權利，就是否認他個人的自主權，這是對人性的侵犯！像尊嚴這一類概念都是由社會的多數人定義。一個享有人類一切權利的個體可能會察覺，比起長期遭受病痛折磨，有尊嚴地死去會是更好的選擇。他應該享有選擇安樂死的權利。簡單地說，這是他的選擇權，跟他面對其他人生境遇時的選擇權是同等的，他是否行使這一權利的決定不應當受到質疑。在一個人選擇安樂死的情況下，我們能做的，只有請求協助其如何離世。

anasia is not immoral.

8.安樂死符合道德

For something to be immoral, it would have to violate moral laws or norms. The argument of anti-euthanasia proponents is that euthanasia is immoral because life must be preserved and protected. The preservation of life is, however, subject to the self-determined choice of the person and not the choice of the physician. As an example, murder infringes on a person's right to life by taking away the element of choice in the persons death. No infringement is done when it is the person who chooses how to die. For a physician to deny the person his right to die when under intense pain and suffering is effectively forcing them to live a life without what they believe is their dignity, a life of suffering and eventual death (in the case of terminally ill patients). While the intentions may be good, no person has the right to demand of another person to live a life of suffering, in fact, that is immoral as it removes their right to choose. Euthanasia facilitates the choice making it in fact the compassionate choice and sympathetic to that person's dignity. It is also important to note that those that argue to preserve life despite the patient being terminally ill and in extreme pain are usually not the patients themselves and therefore removed from the consequences of the decision.

不道德的東西違反法律規則。有人說安樂死是不道德的，因爲人們必須保護生命。但生命的選擇權應該屬於該病人而不是該病人的醫生。比如，殺人犯不顧被害者的意願剝奪了他的生命選擇權，這就是侵犯了被害者的生存權利；而一個人自己選擇以某種方式結束生命時就不存在他人對他的生命權利的侵害。當醫生強制一個飽受病痛折磨的人活下去時，實際上他是否定了病人對自己生命的決定權，從而讓病人繼續忍受病痛和尊嚴的煎熬，直到最終死去。這對於晚期病人來說尤其殘忍。雖然醫生出於好意，但任何人都沒有權利要求一個人忍受病痛的折磨活着。事實上，這就是剝奪別人的選擇權，這是不道德的。而安樂死實際上爲病人提供了一個選擇，讓他能夠以一個比較人道的方式離開這個世界。還有一點不容忽視，一般情況下，反對安樂死的人不是晚期病患，也沒有遭受病痛的折磨，所以沒有資格討論安樂死是否符合道德。

anasia protects self-hood and human dignity.

7.安樂死保護自我尊嚴

Self-determination is one of the key elements that make us human. It is the ability to determine our destiny as individuals and is facilitated by our ability to think for ourselves. Imagine a life where an illness has left you incapable of conducting the basics of life; you are unable to breathe, move or even think for yourself. You have effectively removed your ability to self-determine, arguably a significant element in being "human". Our sense of "self" is created as we progress through life. We grow our personalities as human beings by our choices and experiences. This sense of self is the foundation of our human dignity.

自主決定的能力使我們人類與動物不同，是人類掌握自己命運的體現，並且受人類"利己"本能的影響。試想一下疾病讓你喪失了所有基本生活技能，你再也不能夠自己呼吸、活動、甚至思考；實際上這也意味着你失去了自主決定的能力–而這是人類的重要技能之一。人類的自我意識隨着我們生活經驗的積累而產生。我們通過不斷選擇和嘗試形成了人類的特有品質。正是自我意識形成了人類尊嚴的基礎。

Now, go back to the example of the person who can no longer breathe, move or even think for himself, and add the element of extreme and constant pain to the point where they prefer death to living this way. Over time, because of this experience, the person will eventually lose sight of their "self", when they could move around, form opinions and self determine. This will all be a distant memory, and the most real thing to them will be the constant state of pain they are in. They won't even be able to cry out in pain despite the pain. Seem far-fetched? Consider Tony Nicklinson, whose bid for euthanasia was rejected multiple times. Tony Nicklinson was diagnosed with a disease that prevented him from moving any and all muscles in his body. After his bid was denied, he decided to starve himself to death, which took a week without food. Another example is Kelly Taylor who starved herself for 19 days trying to die. Without the option of euthanasia, their quality of life will continue to deteriorate the same way Tony and Kelly had endured. They will eventually die, but in what state? Will they go out in a state of dignity? Euthanasia can provide them with the opportunity to finish their life keeping their human dignity intact.

現在回到剛纔的話題，當人再也不能自己呼吸、活動、思考，還得常常忍受極端又頻繁的痛苦，生不如死，該怎麼辦？隨着這些痛苦的積累，他最終會喪失"自我"–不能自由活動、發表觀點、自我決定。以前許多輕而易舉就能做到的事情都會變得遙不可及，而令他們感受最深的只剩沒有盡頭的苦痛。而他們甚至不能大哭以表疼痛難受。覺得不可思議？多次申請安樂死都被拒絕的湯尼·尼克林森就是這樣。自從被診斷出患病，全身肌肉逐漸喪失活動功能，多次申請安樂死被拒絕後，湯尼絕食一個星期後離開了這個世界。凱莉·泰勒也曾嘗試絕食19天來結束生命。沒有安樂死，更多人會像湯尼和凱莉一樣，生活變得越來越遭。他們最後會以怎樣的狀態死去呢？能否帶着尊嚴地死去？安樂死就能給他們機會死得好看些，帶着尊嚴而死。

anasia does not harm to others.

6.安樂死不會危害其他人

Because people will naturally have different interests, it is not uncommon to have conflicts of interest. When conflicts arise, it is the goal of civilized society and the state to ensure the resolution of conflicts without the infringement of fundamental human rights. These rights are protected above all others and their infringement is punished severely. That being said, euthanasia as a choice infringes on no such fundamental rights. Death by its nature is a private affair. Assisted suicide (as is the case of euthanasia) involves direct harm and the termination of life only to the individual who has requested it. One cannot request euthanasia for another "competent" person. If this is the case, it will then be a question of murder instead. The process of euthanasia does not restrict or infringe on anyone's fundamental rights and therefore does no harm.

每個人天生都有不同的利益，自然會有利益衝突。有了衝突，文明社會和國家的做法是在沒有侵犯基本人權的基礎上化解衝突。人權至高無上，侵犯人權將會受到嚴重懲罰。話雖如此，安樂死作爲一種選擇，卻沒有侵犯這一基本權利。本質上，死亡是人們的私事。協助自殺（比如安樂死）卻只對要求安樂死的人造成直接傷害以及終結其性命。人們不能要求身體健康的的人安樂死亡。如果有這樣的案例，那麼反而會被質疑這是謀殺。安樂死的過程沒有限制或者侵犯任何人的基本權利，因此安樂死是無害的。

審校：嘉珈Alison 來源：前十網