查看文章 |
In one of the world's smaller countries,mercy-killing is accepted by the medical establishment and openly practised a few thousand times each year.In one of the world's biggest countries,euthanasia is condemened by the medical establishment,secretly practised many times more often,and almost never comes to light.Which of these countries has a mercy-killing doctor now languishing in its jails?It is the small one,Holland,which has rules for enthanasia and so can police it effectively.The Dutch doctor broke his country's rules.There is a moral here for all the countries,and not just for the big death.forbidding country,America,Right now it is going over the arguments about euthanasia once again. In January the Journal of the American Medical Association published a bizarre letter,in which an anonymous doctor claimed to have killed a 20-year-old cancer patient at her own request.This started a debate that will rumble on into the autump,when Californians may vote on a proposed law legalizing euthanasia.The letter was probably written for polemical impact.It is scarcely credible.Its author claims that he(or she)met the cancer patient for the forst time,heard five words from her--"Let's get this over with"---then killed her,Even the most extreme proponents of euthanasia do not support such an action in those circumstances. Yet mediacal monstrosities that are hardly any better undoubtedly countinue,almost as a matter of macabre routine,in America,Britain and many other countries.It is disturbingly easy to find doctors who say,in private,that they sometimes kill patients on purpose.Most say they know somebody else who does,But because they can rarely discuss euthanasia openly with patients--even when those patients beg them for it --doctors tend to kill only when the dying are too far gone to consent.Thus,because voluntary euthanasia is taboo,a doctor makes the decision himself--and the patient is killed involuntarily in the nigth with a syringe,That is one price of keeping euthanasia secret. If all forms of mercy-killing are wrong,they should remain taboo.But are they?because many people accept that it is sad,undignified and gruesome to prolong the throes of death wiht all the might of medical technology,passive euthanasia --letting patients die--is widely accepted,Most American states have "living-will" legislation that protects doctors from prosecution if they do not try to save someone who has said he does not want life prolonged.Active euthanasia--killing--remains controversial.How long can the distinction between killing and letting die hold out? just as there can be culpable omissions,so too can there be blameless acts,Suppose--to take an example from the moral philosophy books---that a man stands to gain from the death of a certain childl.The child strikes his head in the bath and falls unconsicous,The man sits down and watched him drown,The fact that th man has performed no action does not excuse him.Similarly,suppose that a doctor does no wrong by whithhoding some treatment in order that death should come sooner rather than later,Is he then necessarily wrong if he administers enough painkillers to kill?Does the fact that the doctor performed an action ,rather than an ommission,condemn him? Many doctors working on the battlefield of terminal suffering think that only squeamishness demands a firm difference between passive and active euthanasia on request ,Their argument for killing goes like this:one of a doctor's dutier is to prevent suffering;some times that is all there is left for hime to do,and killing is the only way to do it,There is nothing new in this view,When Hipporates for mulated his oath for doctors,which explicitly rules out active killing,most other Greek doctors and thinkers disagreed with his ban. Let the past be a guide, Some people believe that the time of death is appointed by God and that no man should put the clock back on another,Yet if a patient's philosophical views embrace euthanasia,it is not clear why the religious objections of others should intrude on his death.Another worry is that a legal framework for euthanasia,permitting a doctorto comply with a dying man's request in a prescribed set of circumstances,might pose dangers for socity by setting a precedent for killing,That depends on the society.Holland,arguably,is ready for it,It is probably no coincidence that it was dutch doctors who most heroically resisted pressure to join in the Nazi medical atrocity that have given euthanasia its worst name,The same tenacious respect for individual liberty that stopped them killing healthy people,who did not want to die,now lets them help dying people who do. West Germany,by contrast ,will not be able to legalize any form of euthanasia for a long time to come,Opposition is too fierce,because of the shadow of the past.Countries with an uninterrupted recent libertarian tradition have less to fear from setting some limited rules for voluntary euthanasia。By refusing to discuss it,they usher is something worse。 arguable adj 可争辩的 atrocity n 暴行 blameless adj 不可指责的，无过错的 Californian n 加利福尼亚人 Culpable adj 应受谴责的，应受处罚的，有罪的 euthanasia n 安乐死 forbidding adj 禁止的 gruesome adj 可怕的，可憎的 intrude v 强加，入侵 involuntarily adv 非自愿地 languishing adj 渐渐变弱的 legalize vt 合法化 living -will n 活遗嘱（要求个人在日后伤病严重且无望康复时采用或不采用医疗手段延续生命的书面申明） libertarian n 自由意志论者 macabre adj 可怕的，恐怖的 mercy -killing n 安乐死 monstrosity n 怪事，怪物 oath n 誓言，誓约 ommision n 疏忽 pain-killer n 止痛片 polemical adj 争论的，辩论的 police vt 管理 precedent n 先例 proponent n 建议者，支持者 rumble v 隆隆驶过，隆隆响，低沉地讲话 squeamishness n 神经质 syringe n 注射器 taboo n 禁忌 tenacious adj 坚持的，顽强的 tenminal adj 最终的 throe n 剧痛，临死的苦痛 uninterrupted adj 不间断的，持续的 usher v 引，领 withhold vt 制止 |
