安乐死"合法性"的法理分析

安乐死“合法性”研究应是“合法化”研究的前导。否则后者很可能陷入盲目。从逻辑上说,“安乐死合法性”具有三种可能内涵:安乐死不违法;依法律施行安乐死;安乐死是一种权利。分析表明,第一种和第三种安乐死合法性尚不能被现代法权系统承认。各国安乐死立法主要体现了第二种安乐死合法性。第一种安乐死合法性容易被遗忘和忽视;第二种安乐死合法性目前遭到了广泛的误解;第三种安乐死合法性则是误解的产物并且超出了法律的维度。     

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。     

Five Words for Assisted Dying

Motivated by Lord Joffe’s Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill, but with one eye on any possible future legislation, I consider the justifications that might be offered for limiting assistance in dying to those who are suffering unbearably from terminal illness. I argue that the terminal illness criterion and the unbearable suffering criterion are not morally defensible separately: that a person need be neither terminally ill (or ill at all), nor suffering unbearably (or suffering at all) to have a right to assisted dying. Indeed: I shall suggest that the unbearable suffering criterion undermines the Bill (or any proposal like it) wholesale. On the other hand, the criteria taken together are defensible, and this defence would be built on a concern for the protection of the vulnerable. However, I also claim that this implies that the law might justifiably—and maybe even properly—aim to prevent a person from gaining access to that to which they have a serious moral right. This seems paradoxical, and, towards the end of the paper, I seek to tease apart the paradox.     

安乐死的法律定义之思考

安乐死不能理解为“无痛处死” ,它不是“无痛致死术” ,也不是“特殊的死亡方式”。安乐死是一种优化的死亡状态 ,应当具有四个特有属性 ,其本质不是授人以死 ,而是授死者以安乐。安乐死可以分为主动安乐死和被动安乐死。     

Euthanasia in the new born： doubts and interrogations

The debates on euthanasia are quite common nowadays, but few refer to euthanasia in newborns. But the day-to-day medical activities pose a lot of questions about the medical treatments of premature or newborn infants （with severe malformations which were not detected during pregnancy）. What is the criminal liability of the doctor in case of omission of treatment in newborns with severe birth defects？ The work will focus on an analysis of crimes of abortion, the omission of medical treatment and murder and injuries. At last I will try to identify the main trends to find a solution to the different situations-such as injury of the fetus in utero, the omission of treatment of newborns with severe malformations and the omission of basic health care of infants with minor malformations.     

安乐死的宪法学思考

安乐死是困扰人类的一个道德和法律难题,是一个多学科研究的问题。从宪法学的角度来看,安乐死主要涉及到:病人的生命权与人性尊严的竞合、病人是否具有死亡权或者能否放弃自己所享有的基本权利、病人的个人自决权与国家对基本权利的保护义务及其冲突三个问题。如果解决宪法学上的这三个问题,将为其他学科具体构建安乐死制度提供理论上的论证资源。     

人格权中内涵积极请求权的实践争议与发展——以生命自主权的实践争议为例

现代典型立法例一方面开始逐步承认个体因人格的全面实现而享有的对于诸人格要素的自主权;另一方面却又在人格的最为核心的领域持保守的态度,普遍反对个体对生命所享有的一般自主权,即积极安乐死,而荷兰则是其中的例外。从荷兰的法律实践以及相应的理论发展来看,应社会背景的实践需要,于特定情形下承认人格权中内涵积极请求权,既是正当的,也具有可行性。     

关于安乐死非犯罪化问题的思考

无被害人的犯罪正在逐步由社会问题演变为法律问题,这引发了学者们新的思考。在当今伦理规范日益多元的格局下,对于不同的伦理道德应给予一定的容忍,而不宜用法律尤其是刑法对其加以强制。从无被害人犯罪的非犯罪化角度分析,安乐死问题应顺应无被害人“犯罪”之非犯罪化的历史潮流,从而走向合法化的轨道。     

安乐死的刑事理性问题

在争取安乐死权利运动的推动下,安乐死逐渐获得社会与法律的宽容与认可,并且逐渐获得其相应的法律地位。安乐死有其正当性,但当前尚不具备合法化的现实条件。在此情况下,可以基于刑事理性的科学论证,提出事实上的非犯罪化观点及具体措施。     

理解“安乐死”,为“安乐死”在我国的实施创造条件

“安乐死”的本质是为减轻患绝症的病人在精神上和肉体上的极端痛苦,有利于减轻其家属负担,符合优生、优死的唯物主义认识论。“安乐死”不存在现实的社会危害,没有损害绝症患者的生命权,是尊重个体生命权的体现。脑死亡法即将在我国出台,为安乐死的实施创造了条件。