Doctor瞐ssisted Suicide: Is It Ever an Option?

 Should doctor-assisted suicide ever be a legal option? It involves the extreme measure of taking the life of a terminally ill patient when the patient is in extreme pain and the chances for recovery appear to be hopeless. Those who argue against assisted suicide do so by considering the roles of the patient, the doctor, and nature in these situations.

 Should the patient take an active role in assisted suicide? When a patient is terminally ill and in great pain, those who oppose assisted suicide say that it should not be up to that patient to decide what his or her fate will be. There are greater powers at work that determine when a person dies, for example, nature. Neither science nor personal preference should take precedence over these larger forces.

    What role should the doctor have? Doctors, when taking the Hippocratic oath, swear to preserve life at all costs, and it is their ethical and legal duty to follow both the spirit and the letter of this oath. It is their responsibilities to heal the sick, and in the cases when healing is not possible, then the doctor is obliged to make the dying person comfortable. Doctors are trained never to hasten death. Those who oppose assisted suicide believe that doctors who do help terminally ill patients die are committing a crime, and they should be dealt with accordingly. Doctors are also, by virtue of their humanness, capable of making mistakes. Doctors could quite possibly say, for instance, that a cancer patient was terminal, and then the illness could later turn out not to be so serious. There is always an element of doubt concerning the future outcome of human affairs.

The third perspective to consider when thinking about assisted suicide is the role of nature. Life is precious. Many people believe that it is not up to human beings to decide when to end their own or another’s life. Only nature determines when it is the right time for a person to die. To assist someone in suicide is not only to break criminal laws, but to break divine laws as well.

These general concerns of those who oppose assisted suicide are valid in certain contexts of the assisted-suicide question. For instance, patients cannot always be certain of their medical conditions. Pain clouds judgment, and so the patient should not be the sole arbiter of her or his own destiny. Patients do not usually choose the course of their medical treatment, so they shouldn’t be held completely responsible for decisions related to it. Doctors are also fallible, and it is understandable that they would not want to make the final decision about when death should occur. Since doctors are trained to prolong life, they usually do not elect to take it by prescribing assisted suicide.

    I believe that blindly opposing assisted suicide does no one a service. If someone is dying of cancer and begging to be put out of his or her misery, and someone gives that person a deadly dose of morphine, that seems merciful rather than criminal. If we can agree to this, then I think we could also agree that having a doctor close by measuring the dosage and advising the family and friends is a reasonable request. Without the doctor’s previous treatment, the person would surely be dead already. Doctors have intervened for months or even years, so why not sanction this final, merciful intervention?

Life is indeed precious, but an inevitable part of life is death, and it should be precious, too. If life has become an intolerable pain and intense suffering, then it seems that in order to preserve dignity and beauty, one should have the right to end her or his suffering quietly, surely, and with family and friends nearby.

Reading Comprehension
1. In this passage “doctor瞐ssisted suicide” actually refers to the practice that doctors                   .

［A］ kill their patients by intentional inducement

［B］ unconsciously help their patients to commit suicide

［C］ propose euthanasia(安乐死)to the terminally ill

［D］ kill their patients with improper prescription

 

2. People may object to doctor瞐ssisted suicide on the ground that    

［A］ patients should determine when they want to end their lives

［B］ doctors should be punished if they fail to save their patients

［C］ doctors may make mistakes in their diagnosis 

［D］ doctors should wait until their patients’death is certain

 

3. Who has the power to decide when a person should die according to those who argue against assisted death?

 

［A］ The patient.                      ［B］ The doctor.

 

［C］ Nature.                           ［D］ None of the above.

 

4. When speaking of the role patients play in assisted suicide, the author admits that                     .

 

［A］ it is not up to them to make the choice

［B］ science is a better arbiter than their personal preference

［C］ personal preference should not be taken too seriously

［D］ they are unable to make the choice in some cases

5. The author makes it clear that                   .

［A］ he is opposed to doctor-assisted suicide

［B］ he is in favor of doctor-assisted suicide

［C］ he neither objects to nor favors doctor-assisted suicide

［D］ he thinks it better to leave the issue undiscussed at present

【答案与题解】

 

1.［C］

 

   第一段第二句实际上是doctor瞐ssisted suicide的定义。

 

2.［C］

 

   参阅第三段第六、七、八句。

 

3.［C］

 

   参阅第四段第三、四、五句。

 

4.［D］

 

参阅第五段，尤其是本段第一句。

 

5.［B］

 

   参阅最后一段，尤其是该段第二句。

 

 

 

Notes

 

1.第六段第二句是一个简单主从复合句，两个句子由and连接。句架是If someone is dying...and begging...and someone gives that person..., that seems...。句中主句是that seems...。If  someone is..., and someone gives...是由and连接的条件从句。rather than在这里作“而不是”讲。

 

2.第七段第二句是一个简单主从复合句。 句架是If life has become..., then it seems that...。主句中that引导名词从句，在句子中作表语。

 

课文参考译文

由医生帮助的自杀是一种选择方案吗？

由医生帮助的自杀究竟是不是一种合法的方案？当病人极为疼痛而且看来没有希望康复的时候，这涉及结束一个病入膏肓的病人的生命的极端措施。那些反对由医生帮助自杀的人是考虑到在这种情况下病人、医生和自然的作用。

病人在由医生帮助的自杀过程中应当发挥积极作用吗？当一个人病入膏肓而且极为疼痛的时候，那些反对由医生帮助的自杀的人说，病人的命运不应当由病人自己来决定。在决定一个人何时死亡方面，有一些更大的力量在起作用，譬如自然。科学或个人喜好都不应优先于这些更大的力量。

医生应当起什么作用？医生在宣读希波克拉底誓言的时候已宣誓不惜一切代价保护生命，他们在道德和法律上都有义务遵守这个誓言的字面意思和精神实质。他们的责任是治好病人，在不可能治愈的情况下，医生有义务使奄奄一息的人感到舒服。医生接受培训绝不是为了加快死亡。那些反对由医生帮助的自杀的人认为，帮助病入膏肓的病人去死的医生是在犯罪，因而他们也应当受到相应的处置。由于医生是人，他们也会犯错误。例如，医生很可能说一个癌症病人是晚期病人，然而到后来，结果可能是病情并不这样严重。在涉及人的未来结局问题上总是有一种怀疑的因素。

在思考由医生帮助的自杀问题时需要考虑的第三个视角是自然的作用。生命是宝贵的。许多人认为何时结束自己或另外一个人的生命不是由人来决定的。只有自然才能决定一个人死亡的恰当时间。帮助某个人自杀不仅破坏了刑法，而且也破坏了天赐法则。

反对由医生帮助的自杀的那些人的这些一般考虑在由医生帮助的自杀问题所涉及的某些背景下也是有说服力的。例如，病人对于他们的病情不可能总是有把握。疼痛使判断力变得模糊了，因此病人不应当是自己命运的惟一决定者。病人通常不能选择他们的治疗方案，所以他们在与治疗有关的决定上不应承担全部责任。医生也是容易犯错误的。他们在何时死亡的问题上不愿做最后决定也是可以理解的。既然医生接受培训是为了延长寿命，因此他们通常不选择开出由医生帮助的自杀的处方来结束病人的生命。

我认为，盲目反对得到医生帮助的自杀对任何人都没有好处。如果某个人由于癌症而奄奄一息，并乞求一死从而结束自己的痛苦，而某个人给这个人打一针致命的吗啡，那么这种做法似乎是发慈悲而不是犯罪。如果我们能同意这样的说法，那么我认为我们也能同意说，让一个医生来到病人身旁，测量一下用药剂量并向其家人和朋友提出建议，是一个合理的请求。没有这位医生以前的治疗，这个人肯定早已死了。医生已介入几个月，甚至已介入几年，所以为什么不批准这个最后和慈悲的介入呢？

生命确实是宝贵的，但是生命中不可避免的一部分是死亡，死亡也应当是宝贵的。如果生命变成无法忍受的疼痛和极度的痛苦，那么看来，为了保持尊严和美，一个人应当有权在家人和朋友在旁的情况下静悄悄地、稳妥地结束自己的痛苦。