我们有权选择死亡吗? ──对"安乐死"的法理学思考

随着荷兰"安乐死"法案的通过,关于"安乐死"问题的争论日趋激烈,仁智各见.本文拟从法理学的角度对"安乐死"提出个人的反对意见,并进行了较为严谨的论证.     

关于“安乐死”立法化的理论思考

"安乐死"问题事关生死大事,跨越社会、伦理、法律、医学等学科,争议由来已久。对死亡问题进行哲学思辨,目的在于揭示安乐死的哲学基础并寻求共识。对安乐死问题进行伦理分析和文化兼容性思考,有助于突破安乐死问题中国化所面对的两大障碍。研究并解决好这些问题,是实现安乐死立法化的必由之路。     

论安乐死思想的产生

"安乐死"也称无痛苦致死,在现代医学条件下,安乐死问题已经越来越引起人们的关注,对安乐死的追根朔源,特别是对其思想产生的探寻可以加深对安乐死问题的理解。本文反对大多数学者认为安乐死古已有之的说法,而是认为在人们开始了一种自觉的、对生命意义的思考时即启蒙运动之后才真正产生了安乐死的想法。     

再议“安乐死”立法

安乐死从一开始出现就一直备受争议。随着人类社会的科技、经济、文化的发展,人类的死亡观念也发生了重大变化,在世界范围内,许多国家对待安乐死已从过去的禁止、反对,逐步转变为立法管理。安乐死涉及伦理学、医学、法学、社会学、心理学等学科,牵涉医生、病人、家庭、社会等方面的关系,在我国由于安乐死在法律上没有明确规定合法化,一些医院或绝症患者只能采取"自然死亡法"即停止治疗,这实质上就是采取消极安乐死,而此举并不受反对,但对患者造成了痛苦与折磨,对社会和亲属造成了经济和精神上的负担。现代文明社会应尊重患者的生命权与个人选择自由,对患者以临终关怀。安乐死有其法理上的立法依据,安乐死的实施从刑法角度分析也是不具有社会危害性的行为。法律不应回避安乐死,安乐死应该有自己合法的地位。本文拟从安乐死的立法建议,安乐死的立法设想,安乐死的形式和实施方法,安乐死的实施程序,以及安乐死的法律责任等进行阐述。     

“中断医疗型”安乐死在德国的刑法教义学考察

安乐死在中国是否可以允许,是法律界和伦理界一直争论的话题。主流观点是否定实施安乐死,认为安乐死是以协助的方式终结他人生命,侵害了病人享有的生命权和健康权,应该按照故意杀人罪来承担刑事责任。但是司法实践中层出不穷的疑似安乐死案件,是不能简单地根据故意杀人罪来定案的。德国刑事司法实践将安乐死分为"中断医疗型"安乐死、主动直接安乐死、间接安乐死,继而区分何种安乐死是法律允许的,何种安乐死应该绝对禁止。从刑法教义学角度出发,病人的同意、代理人的意见、法庭的许可都可以作为排除犯罪性事由在安乐死案件中影响行为违法性的认定。     

为母实施"安乐死" 儿子能否步后尘?

陕西省汉中市的王明成患胃癌已到晚期,在痛苦难忍的 情况下,他向医院提出了"安乐死"的申请。因为他曾在1986年为母亲 施了"安乐死"而被公安机关逮捕引出我国首例"安乐死"案。这次王 明成为自己请求"安乐死"又在全国引起巨大反响。     

试论安乐死的适用对象及其权利

安乐死的适用对象应当具备两个必要条件:患有不治之症且濒临死亡者 ;正在遭受无法摆脱的难以忍受的剧烈痛苦者.因此,植物人、无生存价值的新生儿不能成为安乐死的适用对象.安乐死的权利包括两个方面:选择死亡的权利;选择理想的死亡状态的权利.安乐死的权利属于安乐死的适用对象.因此,所谓"非自愿安乐死"不属于安乐死的范畴.     

对中国安乐死合法化的可行性探讨

安乐死问题一直是一个备受争议的问题,涉及法学、医学、伦理学和社会学等多学科,从1986年我国出现“安乐死”首例后,对于安乐死合法化问题就一直在争论。本文通过“李燕事件”首先分析了我国安乐死现状,结合我国实际情况对安乐死合法化可行性进行了分析,并探讨了我国安乐死未来发展趋势。     

安乐死合法化的法理探析

探讨安乐死是否应该合法化,关键要明确个人是否有处分自己生命的权利和选择死亡的自由以及安乐死的社会价值。故本文首先探讨了安乐死是否违法,并从人格权及社会效益论的角度对安乐死合法化进行了法理探析。     

域外

瑞士"安乐死"公司遭质疑瑞士一家合法经营的"安乐死"公司由于屡遭抗议,找不到办公地点,无奈推出了流动"安乐死"服务,即让顾客乘车到指定地点后"开始工作"。但此举仍未平息民众心中的不满。     

安乐死的民法学思考——亦谈安乐死的合法化问题

关于安乐死问题学者多是从哲学、宗教、伦理、医学等诸方面进行研究,而较少从民法基本理论角度进行分析。本文拟尝试以法益分析的方法从民法学之生命权和人格尊严权角度对安乐死做一初步考量。并在此基础上提出选择安乐死是自然人的一项天然权利,应给安乐死合法地位。     

Euthanasia: another face of murder

Debate over euthanasia is not a recent phenomenon. Over the years, public opinion, decisions of courts, and legal and medical approaches to the issue of euthanasia has been conflicting. The connection between murder and euthanasia has been attempted in a few debates. Although it is widely accepted that murder is a crime, a clearly defined stand has not been taken on euthanasia. This article considers euthanasia from the medical, legal, and global perspectives and discusses the crime of murder in relation to euthanasia, taking into consideration the issue of consent in the law of crime. This article concludes that in the midst of this debate on euthanasia and murder, the important thing is that different countries need to find their own solution to the issue of euthanasia rather than trying to import solutions from other countries.     

Euthanasia: a reply to Bartels and Otlowski

This article counters arguments made by Bartels and Otlowski in 2010 regarding euthanasia. It suggests that the authors over-emphasised the importance of individual autonomy in its bearing on the euthanasia debate. Drawing on literature concerning elder abuse as well as the "mercy-killing" cases reviewed by Bartels and Otlowski, the article contends that legalising euthanasia may increase the risk that some patients are pressured, inadvertently or deliberately, to request access. Safeguards to detect and deter pressure may be of limited effectiveness against such pressure. Regarding slippery slope arguments, the article discusses the potential for an Australian euthanasia system to eventually be extended in scope to encompass mental suffering. The article encourages consideration of long-term potentialities, including changes in macro-economic conditions.     

The new regulation of voluntary euthanasia and medically assisted suicide in the Netherlands

On 1 April 2002 the Dutch Bill 'Termination of Life on Request and Assisted Suicide (Review Procedures) Act' (Wet toetsing levensbeeindiging op verzoek en hulp bij zelfdoding) came into force. This article starts with an outline of the former legal position in The Netherlands regarding euthanasia and medically assisted suicide, followed by an explanation of the new Act. The main focus of this contribution lays on the requirements of due care, the obligation to notify euthanasia to the coroner and the revised legal position of the so-called Regional Review Commissions. Furthermore, the article considers the termination of life in the case of minors and the function and requirements of written statements of euthanasia by patients no longer capable of communication. Finally, the article gives an overview of the problems [that] may come in the future concerning the approach to euthanasia in The Netherlands.     

Death, dying, and euthanasia: Australia versus the Northern Territory

The purpose of this article is to explain what has happened in the euthanasia debate in the Australian States and Territories, and to give a more detailed account of how the Northern Territory's euthanasia laws were overturned by the Federal Government. Dr. Fleming begins with a review of euthanasia legislation in each State and Territory, then proceeds with an analysis of the events in the Northern Territory leading to reversal of its euthanasia laws, and includes the effect of the euthanasia law on the Aboriginal people. He concludes that the repeal of the 1995 Northern Territory's Rights of the Terminally Ill Act was a significant setback for the pro-euthanasia movement not only in Australia, but worldwide.     

安乐死问题立法进展比较

无论在国内还是在国际上 ,安乐死问题都是一个新课题。本文主要对美国、澳大利亚和中国关于安乐死问题的研究与立法状况进行了比较研究。作者认为 ,安乐死立法应体现无危害、无痛苦、不违背个人意愿三个特征。     

An outsider's view of Dutch euthanasia policy and practice

This article provides a critical analysis of Dutch euthanasia policy and practice. The research benefited from twenty-eight interviews conducted in the Netherlands during the summer of 1999 with some of the leading figures who dictate the decision-making process and take an active part in the debates. The discussion begins with a review of the two major Dutch reports on euthanasia and the conflicting views and interpretations offered by the literature. Next, I provide some data about the interviews, and then analysis indicating that the Dutch Guidelines on the policy and practice of euthanasia do not provide ample mechanisms against abuse. I argue that the Dutch Guidelines are insufficient, do not provide adequate control over the practice of euthanasia, and that the entire policy should be revised and made more coherent and more comprehensive.     

Non-voluntary passive euthanasia: the social consequences of euphemisms

Non-voluntary passive euthanasia, the commonest form of euthanasia, is seldom mentioned in the UK. This article illustrates how the legal reasoning in Airedale NHS Trust v Bland contributed towards this conceptual deletion. By upholding the impermissibility of euthanasia, whilst at the same time permitting 'euthanasia' under the guise of 'withdrawing futile treatment', it is argued that the court (logically) allowed (withdrawing futile treatment and euthanasia). The Bland reasoning was incorporated into professional guidance, which extended the court's ruling to encompass patients who, unlike Anthony Bland, were sentient. But since the lawfulness of (withdrawing futile treatment and euthanasia) hinges on the futility of treatment, and since the guidance provides advice about withdrawing treatment from patients who differ from those considered in court, the lawfulness of such 'treatment decisions' is unclear. Legislation is proposed in order to redress the ambiguity that arose when moral decisions about 'euthanasia' were translated into medical decisions about 'treatment'.     

安乐死的现实呼唤与立法思考

随着社会文明的进步和发展,人类的死亡观越来越成熟。于是,安乐死这一观念也逐渐为人们所得知、理解与支持。面对我国安乐死呼声的日渐高涨,面对安乐死在实施中的混乱和滥用以及法律执行举步维艰的现实,本文呼吁应尽早立法,加快安乐死合法化进程,用法律来规范我国的安乐死实践,以加大对生命的保护力度。     

Euthanasia: why it doesn't matter (much) what the doctor thinks and why there is no suggestion that doctors should have a duty to kill

A major reason that The Netherlands has taken a different approach to the rest of the world on such a fundamental moral issue is that the courts and legislature in that country have accorded the interests of doctors a cardinal role in the euthanasia debate. This article argues that the interests of doctors are of only incidental and peripheral relevance in relation to the moral status of euthanasia. The moral status of euthanasia has little to do with the preparedness of doctors to administer the lethal injection or their general attitude towards the practice. Euthanasia is principally about the interests of the patient and the impact that the practice may have on the community in general, not preserving the conscience or improving the working life of doctors.