安乐死英文资料Euthanasia

安乐死_英语作文（优秀范文五篇）第一篇：安乐死_英语作文The euthanasia The fast advance of medicine and life–extending technologies enable life to be prolonged.The euthanasia has been becoming the hot topic around the world, and questioned discussion about its legalization occurs at home and abroad.In my opinion, the euthanasia is mercy.It can help hopeless ill patients to dead qucikly，relieve them from the pain , For these people，the quality of life is the foundation value of life.For these patients who can never be cured, death is unavoidable to them, so the euthanasia is the best way to let them away from great pain.And these patients have to suffer from the pain, at the same time, their family members have to stand the expensive medical expenses and the great hurt mentally，“We mustn't delay any longer … swallowing is difficult … and breathing, that's also difficult.Those muscles are weakening too … we mustn't delay any longer.”the words from a Dutchman asked his doctor to help him die.At that time ,he was no longer able to speak clearly and he knew there was no hope of recovery and that his condition was rapidly get worse.Therefore,it's merciful for the doctors to help these patience come to an end of their life with the euthanasia.In addition, to reduce the pain of the patients is one of the doctors' duty, so euthanasia.is moral.To be frank, everyone has the right and freedom to manage their own final destiny, such as refuse any cure.And thus right also includes the freedom of choosing to die as well as the ways of death, even when it's necessary to ask somebody else to end their life.In a word.I want to call on the legitimization of the euthanasia.let the patients get rid of thestruggle between life and death as soon as possible.第二篇：英语作文：安乐死（1）有利于病人的自身利益。

安乐死的英文作文英文：Euthanasia, also known as assisted suicide or mercy killing, is a controversial topic that has been debated for decades. Some people believe that individuals who are terminally ill or suffering from unbearable pain should have the right to choose to end their own lives with the help of a physician. Others argue that euthanasia goes against the sanctity of life and can lead to abuse.Personally, I believe that euthanasia should be legalized under certain circumstances. For example, if a patient has a terminal illness and is in constant pain, they should have the right to end their suffering. However, strict regulations and guidelines must be put in place to prevent abuse and ensure that the patient is making an informed decision.In my opinion, the decision to end one's own life is adeeply personal one and should not be made lightly. It is important for the patient to have access to counseling and support to help them make an informed decision. Additionally, the physician who assists with the euthanasia should be well-trained and experienced in end-of-life care.中文：安乐死，也称为协助自杀或慈悲杀死，是一个备受争议的话题，已经争论了几十年。

Whether we should legalize euthanasia?I. Definition：不知到PM会定义成什么，把几个具体的术语列出来你看一下吧1.V oluntary Euthanasia：The action of a third party,which deliberately ends the life ofan individual,with that individual’s consent.2.Non-voluntary Euthanasia: Where the individual is unable to ask for euthanasia and another person makes the decision on his/her behalf,usually based on previously expressed wishes.3.Assisted Suicide: Where an individual takes his/her own life based on information, guidance and/or medication provided by a third party.4.Physician Assisted Suicide: Where a doctor provides the information,guidance and/or medication with which an individual can take his/her own life.II. Major Clashes1. Whether individuals have the right to end their own life?正方：①It is generally accepted that as an expression of bodily autonomy i.e. one’s right to make independent choices without any external influences, a competent adult can refuse medical treatment,even in situations where this could result in his/her death.②Proponents argue that euthanasia allows terminally ill people to die with dignity and without pain and that decision to end a life of pain and suffering is an expression of one’s right to personal autonomy, which should be respected by one’s family, healthcare providers and society at large. As every individual is entitled to the freedom of choice, they should be free to dictate the time and place of their own death.③Finally, proponents argue that forcing people to live against their wishes violates personal freedoms and human rights and that it is immoral to compel people to continue to live with unbearable pain and suffering.反方：①Opponents of euthanasia, argue that the human beings, as a part of the society, also an extension of their parents’ life, are socially-constructed invention, which means they do not have dominion over life but are stewards of life. Also they contend that the sanctity of human life and the continuation of human existence are the highest principle which can under no circumstances, be violated. The powerful combination of sanctity of life and stewardship is expressed in the foundational ethical principle.②Few decisions are as important as those related to end-of-life healthcare. While an individual might want to express his/her autonomy by deciding to end his/her life, that decision will, in all likelihood, be influenced by the views of third parties i.e.the individual’s doctor, family or friends.③Opponents argue that because we live in an interdependent society, where one’s decisions will impact on others physically, emotionally and financially, limits should be placed on personal autonomy in relation to end-of-life healthcare choices. Opponents have raised concerns about the implications legalizing euthanasia would have for society. They state that governments have a duty to protect society as a whole, as opposed to individual citizens and that allowing euthanasia could harm society. Therefore, they argue that governments should balance an individual’s right to die against potential negative consequences for the wider community. （当个人的freedom of choice 涉及到third part interest 时，政府有权加以限制）2.Does euthanasia devalue life?反方：It has been argued that permitting euthanasia could diminish respect for life. Concerns have been raised that allowing euthanasia for terminally ill individuals’quest could result in a situation where all terminally ill individuals would feel pressured into availing of euthanasia. There are fears that such individuals might begin to view themselves as a burden on their family, friends and society or as a strain on limited health care resources.Opponents of euthanasia also contend that permitting individuals to end their lives may lead to a situation where certain groups within society e.g.the terminally ill,severely disabled individuals or the elderly would be euthanized as a rule.正方：However, proponents of euthanasia argue that legalizing the practice would not devalue life or result in pressure being put on individuals to end their lives but would allow those with no hope of recovery to die with dignity and without unnecessary suffering.They state that it would be imprudent not to implement legislation because this would drive euthanasia underground where it would be unregulated. However proponents argue that there is no value in a life which is inflicted with unbearable agony and doom to end in a short time. They also state that individuals who have no hope of recovery and feel that the overall quality of life has deteriorated should not be obliged to suffer unduly. By granting those terminally ill patients the right die in dignity, the government is actually putting more emphasis on the sanctity of human life.3.Would legalizing euthanasia undermine the level of healthcare provided?反方：There are fears that allowing euthanasia would encourage the practice to become the norm, as it might be easier and cheaper to provide than other forms of end-of-life healthcare.Counterplan: Opponents of euthanasia argue that more resources should be put into palliative care, which allows people to die with dignity and which offers support and comfort to family and friends. Palliative care attempts to improve the quality of life for patients facing a life-threatening or life-limiting illness through the prevention and relief of pain and other symptoms, including physical, psychological, social and spiritual problems.About the role of physicians: A re physicians’ most basic obligations to fight disease and prolong life or to relieve suffering？Opponents of euthanasia argue that if physicians work only to relieve suffering in the quickest way possible, the medical world would lose any incentive to provide better palliative care and find new cures and therapies.slippery slope: While euthanasia is often associated with terminally ill patients, there have been suggestions that voluntary euthanasia might also be relevant to very elderly individuals, individuals with chronic or degenerative illness, individuals with mental health problems and society as a whole. If one day we allow Dr. Kevorkian to drug terminals patients to death, it will only be a matter of time before he pokes a big enough hole in the law that allows him to give lethal injections to patients in comas(昏迷), then to people not terminally ill, such as children with birth defects.正方反驳：However, it has been estimated that in a minority of cases an individual’s pain can not be eased with palliative drug treatment and concerns have been raised regarding the profound spiritual and psychological suffering experienced by individuals faced with their imminent death. When the disease causes intolerable suffering that cannot be relieved by convention interventions and can only lead to a painful death , proponents argue that individuals should have a right to die on their own terms and at a time of their own choice and suggest that euthanasia should be offeredas a viable alternative for those individuals who are not satisfied with palliative care.4.Would the legalization of euthanasia lead to potential abuses?反方① If we legalize euthanasia, we are actually granting a special group of people the right to claim an individual’s life. According to the law, anyone who voluntarily, knowingly or premeditatedly takes the life of another, even one minute prior to death, is a killer. Legalized euthanasia will invite abuse of human life because any form of murder many be conveniently dubbed“mercy killing”by unscrupulous people and it is really hard to draw a clear line between “mercy killing”and “intentional homicide”, which will cause severe disorder in the criminal justice system. Therefore, with the excuse of “assisted killing”, murderers will be exempted from corresponding penalty and the overall deterrence of law will be in a downward trend, posing direct threat to social security and stability.正方：① By providing safeguards against the abuses, and more systematic precautions, we can achieve the legalization of euthanasia without inflicting harm to the social security.Case: Oregon 尊严死亡法案5. Financial burden on families Vs Social Inequality (unfairness on the vulnerable group like the poor, the poorly-educated,etc.)deficiencies in China’s current health care system。

Euthanasia: A Means, Not the End Summary:Euthanasia means "happy death" or "mercy killing", which is sometimes used to help patients die without suffering too much pain. The purpose of euthanasia is kind and benevolent, but as it is related to death, the result may not seem so kind or benevolent when we see anyone die. This is why euthanasia becomes one of the most widely and hotly debated issues in society. Do we have "the right to die"? Should euthanasia be legalized? In what kind of situation will euthanasia be put into practice?(words:87)With the high-speed development of medicine, our life become much longer and more comfortable. Though medicine can usually prevent us from death, we cannot avoid dying throughout life. If your disease were incurable, of course high-level medicine could extend your life more or less, but it would also extend your pain at the same time. In this situation, as death is visible and unavoidable while pain is hard for you to stand, euthanasia is used.Many people around the world are in favor of the idea of euthanasia, the core concept they invoke is "the right to die", which means anyone who has incurable disease with pain beyond suffering can choose to die when they or their family is determined to. People supporting the idea "the right to die" believe that euthanasia is humane, because it helps hasten the death of hopelessly ill patients, relieving them from the fierce pain, which is good for not only the dying patients but their families.Of course, the use of euthanasia has rationality. It's necessary to permit euthanasia in some special situations.However, there are also many disadvantages of euthanasia. First, euthanasia can be abused when doctors is treating disabled people and old people, which leads to crime. Second, when a seriously-ill patient is determined to take euthanasia, he may not make clear-headed decision because his consciousness is probably muddled. Third, too many examples of euthanasia may result in social moral crisis and doctors may not try their best to cure a dying patient once they have the power to practice euthanasia. This conduct is nothing less than murdering.In order to prevent the abuse of euthanasia, we must strictly standard ize the application of euthanasia. So, when can doctor use euthanasia legally? I think it depends on several conditions.First of all, euthanasia can be only practiced on terminally ill patients, when the practice of euthanasia serves only to hasten death. Secondly, we should guarantee the earnest and strictness of euthanasia, so taking euthanasia need the permission of patient himself or his family, the acceptance of doctors and the certificate from court. Thirdly, the method to practice euthanasia must conform to humanitarianism, and only professional and qualified doctor can practice euthanasia. Finally, legal euthanasia can't betray its original purpose. Euthanasia is a merciful way to end patients' life. Doctors practice euthanasia in order that the patients will no longer suffer a fierce pain. Euthanasia can make the patients die peacefully. To some extent, it is a kind of respect to human life.Euthanasia has come into being for a long time, it's impossible and groundless to forbid it completely. I think it won't be long to legalize euthanasia in China, what we should do is to make the law on euthanasia as perfect as possible.Anyhow, we shouldn't regard euthanasia as a painless way to commit suicide, and there is no reason for us to take it for granted that euthanasia is a good way to terminate our life. Y ou cannot expect euthanasia to bring you any relief as it seems, the only thing euthanasia can do is take your pain with your life. After all, life is the most precious treasure we have.In fact, to terminate one's life by taking euthanasia is not only a legal issue but also a moral issue because it refers to a choice between painfully liv ing and comfortably dying. Which one would you choose? Just like what Confucius said: "It's useless talking about death before you understand life clearly."[1]According to Confucius's words, it's useless talking about choosing how to die while we haven't settled the problems of life. So should we pay too much attention on "the right of death" while we still can't guarantee the rights of life? Is it the time for us to focus more on those people who are alive?(words:655) [1] 出自《论语·先进》:孔子云：“未知生，焉知死？”Reference:1.Y e Gaofeng. "A Law View on Euthanasia",The Issues and Disputes of Penal Law . 1(2001): 3992.Zhang Yutang. "Do We Have right to die?" Law. 5(2001): 333.Wu Jing. "Euthanasia Is Not Crime", The Issues and Disputes of Penal Law. 1(2000): 1134.Wang Xiaohui. To Discuss Euthanasia. Jilin People's Press5.Chu Dongping. Euthanasia. Shanghai. Culture Press, 1988。

安乐死（希腊语：Ευθανασία，英语：Euthanasia，eu意“好”、thanatos衍生自死神塔那托斯），有“好的死亡”或“无痛苦的死亡”的含意，是一种给予患有不治之症的人以无痛楚、或更严谨而言“尽其量减小痛楚地”致死的行为或措施，一般用于在个别患者出现了无法医治的长期显性病症，因病情到了晚期或不治之症，对病人造成极大的负担，不愿再受病痛折磨而采取的了结生命的措施，经过医生和病人双方同意后进行，为减轻痛苦而进行的提前死亡。

安乐死分主动安乐死和被动安乐死两种，主动安乐死是按病人要求，主动为病人结束生命（例如透过注射方式）；被动安乐死是按病人意愿停止疗程（例如除去病人的维生系统或让病人停止服药），使其自然死亡。

以荷兰为例，目前荷兰要执行安乐死，须出自病人意愿，且有医生证明病人正处于“不能减轻”和“不能忍受”的痛苦中，医生和病人之间也得先达成共识，确认安乐死已经是他们的唯一选择。

安乐死在许多国家引发了很大的争议（例如美国的特丽·夏沃案）。

目前已立法容许安乐死的地方有荷兰、比利时、卢森堡、瑞士和美国的俄勒冈州、华盛顿州和蒙大拿州等地。

德国禁止主动安乐死，允许被动安乐死。

重症病人可以以口头形式或者书面形式要求被动安乐死。

当病人因病重无法表达意愿时，其亲属可以代替他做出决定。

许多人对多年以前发生在西安的一幕记忆犹新：因为无法承受高额的医疗费用，9名尿毒病人集体提出安乐死。

在中国，因为高额的医疗费用，担心连累家人成为提出安乐死的理由。

安乐死的进步性现在媒介已经多有论证，但是在中国，在现在，要实施安乐死必须要突破高额医疗费用这道坎。

或许，安乐死并非只是死亡的自由与尊严。

当有消息说不要让学生因为没有钱而失学的时候，我们能否预期：让每个人不要因为没有钱而自杀或者去安乐死？这将是一个长期的过程。

在我国，很多人提出安乐死，是认为自己是家人和社会的负担，无钱医治或被子女遗弃。

如能加以开导，绝大部分的病人都会回心转意。

支持安乐死的英语作文英文回答：Euthanasia, also known as assisted suicide, is a topic that sparks heated debates worldwide. Proponents of euthanasia argue that individuals should have the right to end their own lives with dignity, especially when faced with terminal illnesses, unbearable pain, or severe mental health conditions. They emphasize the principle of patient autonomy and the importance of respecting individuals' wishes. Additionally, they contend that euthanasia can alleviate suffering and prevent prolonged agony, providing comfort and peace to those who choose it.Opponents of euthanasia, on the other hand, raise concerns about the potential for abuse, coercion, and slippery slopes. They argue that legalizing euthanasia could lead to a devaluation of life and increased pressure on vulnerable individuals to end their lives. Critics also express concerns about the potential for misdiagnosis andmistakes, emphasizing the need for extreme caution and a robust regulatory framework. Furthermore, they argue that euthanasia undermines the role of palliative care and hospice services, which focus on providing comfort and pain management without ending life.In many countries, the legal status of euthanasia varies. Some jurisdictions have legalized euthanasia under strict conditions, while others prohibit it entirely. In the United States, for example, euthanasia is generally illegal, but certain states have legalized physician-assisted suicide under specific circumstances.The debate surrounding euthanasia is complex and involves a range of ethical, legal, medical, and religious considerations. There are valid arguments on both sides of the issue, and it is a matter that requires careful deliberation and compassionate dialogue.中文回答：安乐死。

Euthanasia is to kill people. Life is so important for every one. People don’t only live for themselves, but they also live for their families and the society. If they choose to leave the world, they are not responsible for themselves, their families and the society.Euthanasia is disparagement of life. Life is so precious. Patients should cherish their life. They should try their best to prevail incurable disease. Everyone should show basic respect for life. No matter what happens, we should face up to the facts, we should live on with great courage, we should believe in wonder. Nothing is impossible.Euthanasia stops the medicine developing. If the patients require using euthanasia, doctors won’t try their best to save patients. The medicine will stop p rogress. If making euthanasia is made legal, patients who use euthanasia will be protected by law. The doctors’ right will be obvious. Doctors are given too much power, and can be wrong or unethical. Patients put their faith and trust in the opinions of their doctor.people abuse euthanasia when it is legalized, it can harm people lives. In the name of euthanasia, carry out committing suicide. Miracle cures or recoveries can occur. You can never underestimate the power of the human spirit.It demeans the value of human life. In this country, human life means something.It could open the floodgates to non-critical patient suicides and other abuses. Any loosening of the assisted-suicide laws could eventually lead to abuses of the privilege.Many religions prohibit suicide and the intentional killing of others. The most basic commandment is "You shall not kill".Insurance companies may put undue pressure on doctors to avoid heroic measures or recommend the assisted-suicide procedure. Health insurance providers are under tremendous pressure to keep premiums down.Euthanasia can become a means of health care cost containment..Physicians and other medical care people should not be involved in directly causing death. Mercy killing is morally incorrect and should be forbidden by law.It's a homicide and murdering another human cannot be rationalized under any circumstances.Human life deserves exceptional security and protection. Advanced medical technology has made it possible to enhance human life span and quality of life. Palliative care and rehabilitation centers are better alternatives to help disabled or patients approaching death live a pain-free and better life.Family members influencing the patient's decision into euthanasia for personal gains like wealth inheritance is another issue. There is no way you can be really sure if the decision towards assisted suicide is voluntary or forced by others.Mercy killing would cause decline in medical care and cause victimization of the most vulnerable society. Would mercy killing transform itself from the "right to die" to "right to kill"?How would one assess whether a disorder of mental nature qualifies mercy killing? What if the pain threshold is below optimum and the patient perceives the circumstances to be not worthy of living? How would one know whether the wish to die is the result of unbalanced thought process or a logical decision in mentally ill patients? What if the individual chooses assisted suicide as an option and the family wouldn't agree?As to face the parting, helplessness, loss of self-control, fear of death and sorrow and so the majority of patients will experience mental suffering. In this psychological requirement under the "Euthanasia", we can say that he is reasonable? "According to the study of suicide, suicide andtreatable mental illness is intrinsically related, but not the fatal disease, a study found that in 44 patients with advanced cancer, only three thought about suicide, but are there is a serious depression. Another study shows that 85 suicides, only one person suffering from terminal illness, and 90-100% of the suicides were suffering from obvious mental illness.Undeniably, the modern medical practice slow death process, often cited the loss of personal characteristics of patients Mei, dignity, independence and autonomy.However, the expression of active euthanasia as acts of personal autonomy, it is wrong. Reasons: (a) Since active euthanasia need help, then it is not an individual matter, but the open or in the public thing.(B) under the public recognition to self-defense, capital punishment and justice in the form of war, murder, only to defend the life for everyone, not to the benefit of those killed. So, even if death is painful relief, can not be lightly taken away the right to life committed to personal. (C) even if the person'sself-determination recognized the right to choose to die, that does not mean the right to ask others to kill themselves, does not include the right to authorize self to kill others. (D) autonomy, including the right of slavery has never been their own, in other words, the right to freedom does not mean the right not to freedom.So to maintain the autonomy, the need to protect life, to give others their right to life is not trampling the principle of maintaining independence. Therefore, individual autonomy and social need and public objectives and values to be consistent.active euthanasia may gradually lose its spontaneity, and thus out of (i) "secret euthanasia", meaning that without their own consent, to be a doctor euthanized. (Ii) "forced euthanasia", meaning patients suffering from terminal illness would be coercion to lure choose euthanasia to relieve their families in the economic and psychological pressures, and save limited resources of society, the patients chose to die, do not feel life is a burden or tired of life, but he felt the burden of someone else, and that others dislike. (Iii) "Deputy euthanasia" means to allow patients who lack capacity to self-determination by the people "proxy decision" to euthanasia. (Iv) "Discrimination against euthanasia," the crisis is the number of types of patients such as the poverty stricken or belonging to ethnic minorities, may be "clever" to force that "euthanasia" requirement, the mercy of others. Made ill patients caught in the dilemma of both the opposition between the yield, resulting in additional unnecessary fear and anxiety. The information may be heard: "Death is terrible! Your best choice of euthanasia."of the slip waves, is once the "euthanasia" is legalized, its use will inevitably extend to other types of patients but not the dying, if not cure patients, but not incurable disease, then the risk of Alzheimer's disease or brain degradation, even those born with severe disabilities Down syndrome baby. . And so on. So, if this argument, once established, will only create panic and fear that they will be forcibly sent to "euthanasia" in the ranks. Therefore, I agree Frasen say, "human life, merely the possibility of error, is enough to completely reject the" euthanasia. " "。