英语 安乐死辩论赛正方和反方的观点

有人赞同安乐死，有人反对安乐死，还要有自己的观点Basically, i support the act of euthanasia.Everyone was born equally, and everyone was born with human rights. what's human rights stand for? it simply means the rights about life and living, that is to say, people should have the rights to decide for themselves whether to live or to die. they are masters of theirselves. for those who execute the act of euthanasia, if they operate it under the party's own willings, and through a legal and openly process, they should not be to blame.And what's more, the act of euthanasia is sort of humanitarian, especially when the party are tortured by his health condition, and it's completely hopeless at all for them to recover.of course, from optimistic and positive point of view, nobody should give up himself and end his life. but sometimes, and many times, it's just a torture for him to prolong his life, not only for himself, but also his families.1——文章来源网络，仅供参考。

1、定义：安乐死(Euthanasia）指对无法救治的病人停止治疗或使用药物，让病人无痛苦地死去。

“安乐死”一词源于希腊文，意思是”幸福”地死亡。

它包括两层含义，一是安乐的无痛苦死亡;二是无痛致死术.中国的定义指患不治之症的病人在垂危状态下，由于精神和躯体的极端痛苦，在病人和其亲友的要求下，经医生认可，用人道方法使病人在无痛苦状态中结束生命过程。

(反驳常识性、原则性的东西，用于应对无理取闹)2、安乐死如果以法律的形式确认下来，并不是之后说我们就没有作为了，我们可以另外增设完善相关的法律法规去遏制这种犯罪现象的发生，每次举措刚开始时都会或多或少有缺陷,假如就因为这些片面的原因而去全盘否定、不去实施，那么这个社会将不会再发展下去。

(反驳安乐死如果以“法律”的形式确定下来，会被利用非法剥夺他人的生命.）3、是的，生命不是只是属于一个人，也是属于社会的,因此生命需要服从社会，把有限的医疗资源支付给身患绝症、没有治疗价值的病人的做法,对于那些生活在贫困地区、因缺少医药而得不到良好治疗便死亡或残疾的人来说，同样是不公平、不人道的；实施安乐死无疑是减少社会公共负担、增大了医疗资源的利用率，更可以说是为社会集体负责与付出贡献,怎么会说是不负责的表现呢？（反驳生命权虽然是个人自由，但是同时生命也是属于社会的，承担着社会责任,所以安乐死是对社会责任不负责的表现。

）4、反驳上面问题（1）(2）（3）：作为一个人，他天然享有神圣而不可侵犯的生命权。

它是一个人拥有一切权利的源泉,生命权不受任意的侮辱、损害、践踏与剥夺，也就是说患者有自主选择生命的形式，没有人想要去结束生命,除了他是在被生命折磨不堪，想要结束生命.然后请反方重新认识一下安乐死的定义，安乐死是在“病人”“亲友”“医生”三方的同意之下，才可以实施,安乐死是个人意愿；所以就算实施救治无望是一个模糊的概念,就算未知这种疾病在将来是否被攻克，实不实施安乐死是患者的意愿，我们应该尊重他的意愿,而不是去干涉他的生命权!!！5、反驳问题（4）:这是太过绝对的说法，实施安乐死是迫不得已的做法，因此人们为了尽量避免使用这种方法，会更努力地去寻找新的医疗方法去取缔这个方法，而不是说就是使用安乐死的方法而不研究其他方法。

Mercy killing is one of the most controversial issues in the world of medicine. As the picture given above depicts, A late sick mother desperately ill son request for euthanasia. But the son was cut for this。

feeling helpless because he is at a loss what to do about it.The picture really sets me thinking. It implies that people differ in their attitudes towards the mercy killing.Some people think it is right.but others dont think so.now let us listen to everyone's different opinions安乐死是医学界最有争议的问题之一。

正如上面所示的视频所描绘的，一位晚期患病母亲病入膏肓，请求儿子实施安乐死。

但儿子且为此获罪，感到无能为力，因为他们不知道该怎么办。

这幅画确实发人深省。

它暗示，人们在对待安乐死上看法不一致。

有些人认为他是对的，但其他的不这样认为，现在让我们听听大家的不同观点赞成1.If a person loses the survivability of the community has not contributed to lose the meaning of life.reduce reliance on others and a burden on society.如果一个人失去了生存能力，对社会没有了贡献，也就失去了生命的意义，减少对别人的倚赖和对社会的负担。

第一部分：反对安乐死和医助性自杀的理由1.安乐死的不法性/不道德性（wrongfulness）原文概要：安乐死就是故意地夺取一个假设没有希望的人的生命，无论是他自己还是他人的，安乐死都是夺取生命。

失误性杀害、因医疗治愈需要意外死亡或因缺乏救治手段而死亡都不是安乐死。

意识到病人几乎没有机会从持续治疗中获益之后，停止继续治疗被一些人认为是“被动性安乐死”。

这个词语是误导性的和错误的。

所谓的被动性安乐死并不是安乐死。

为什么反对安乐死？（1）从本能角度的论据：（人有求生的本能）每个人都有继续下去的自然倾向。

从日常行为到生理功能看都是这样，但安乐死侵犯了这种生存的自然目的。

安乐死侵犯了人的尊严，否认基本的人类特点。

（2）从自身利益出发的论据：死亡是最终的、不可逆转的，如果我们实施安乐死或让别人在自己身上实施安乐死，那么安乐死就包含了我们会违背自己利益的可能性。

现代医学很发达，但容错性依然很高，在此情况下，允许安乐死，我们有可能不必要送命。

以后被治愈或自愈的可能性使我们不能放弃生命而使用安乐死。

“安乐死可能性的存在是我们在有可能生存的时候却远离了生命。

”（3）从实际效果出发的论据：对大多数的医生和护士来说，他们是全心全意挽救生命的。

而安乐死变成医疗实务可能使他们不再尽力挽救生命，可能造成医护质量的全面倒退。

因而，将安乐死作为法律政策是一种滑坡。

从自愿性安乐死到没有授权的病人实施直接性的安乐死，到把非自愿安乐死作为社会政策的一部分，其间只差了一小步。

很容易逾越。

安乐死不只是死亡，是谋杀。

2.在自我抉择失去理智的时候丹尼尔·卡拉汉反对任何允许自愿性安乐死和帮助性自杀的社会政策。

他坚持认为，自我决断和仁慈（支持安乐死和自杀的两个价值观）可能是互相分离的。

当发生这种情况时，以任何理由的帮助性自杀和因无能力的非自愿安乐死就变得让人接受了。

卡拉汉反对雷切尔斯的观点：谋杀与任其死亡的区别在道德上是不相关的。

他认为这个区别是很重要的，而且终结一个生命的决定要求对意义和质量进行判断，而医生对此没有能力作出判断。

安乐死应该合法化正方辩词，一辩、二辩、三辩、四辩发言稿一辩发言稿：尊敬的评委、各位辩手，大家好！今天我们的辩题是“安乐死应该合法化”。

我作为正方的第一位辩手，我要就此发表我的看法。

首先，我认为安乐死是一种人道的行为。

对于那些身患重病、痛苦难忍的人来说，他们可能已经失去了生活的意义。

如果他们选择安乐死，那么这是一种对他们自身的尊重和关爱。

我们不能因为我们的价值观和道德观念而剥夺他们自主选择的权利。

其次，安乐死的合法化可以减轻医疗资源的压力。

在一些国家和地区，安乐死已经合法化，这样可以减轻医疗系统的负担。

对于那些病情已经无法挽救的病人来说，他们的生命延续只会消耗更多的医疗资源，而这些资源可以用来救治那些仍有希望的病人。

最后，我们不能因为道德观念而忽视人们的自主权利。

安乐死的合法化可以保护人们的自主选择权利，而不是让他们受制于他人的意志。

我们应该尊重每个人的选择，而不是强迫他们接受我们的价值观和道德观念。

总之，我认为安乐死应该合法化，这是一种人道的行为，可以减轻医疗资源的压力，并保护人们的自主选择权利。

谢谢大家！二辩发言稿：尊敬的评委、各位辩手，大家好！我是正方的第二位辩手，我要就“安乐死应该合法化”这个话题发表我的看法。

首先，我认为安乐死的合法化可以减轻病人和家庭成员的痛苦。

对于那些身患重病、痛苦难忍的病人来说，他们可能已经失去了生活的意义。

这时，如果他们选择安乐死，那么这可以让他们摆脱痛苦，从而减轻他们和家庭成员的痛苦。

这是一种人性化的行为。

其次，安乐死的合法化可以避免非法安乐死的发生。

在一些国家和地区，安乐死是非法的，但是仍有一些人选择非法安乐死。

这可能会导致一些不必要的痛苦和悲剧。

如果安乐死合法化，那么这些人就可以在合法的程序下选择安乐死，避免非法安乐死的发生。

最后，安乐死的合法化可以保护医生的权利。

在一些国家和地区，医生可能会因为帮助病人实现安乐死而面临法律风险。

这可能会让医生在面对病人的选择时感到无助和困惑。

英语安乐死辩论Good morning ,everyone ; my name is Yang .I am the first debater on positive side. Here are my opinions.1 First I will state the definaton of euthanasia,that is people who are attacked by incurable disease can’t surffer from the pains and decide to employ a humane way to end their lives without pain.2 Second, as with survival, death is a kind of human rights. When he felt happier than survival of death, he has the right to choose death, society should meet the people's needs, and give every person who is suffering incurable disease to choose the right euthanasia .So citizens have the right to choose the way of death. It is another case of freedom of choice.3 Third , for mortally ill patients, long life actually only means extend pain. For them to end their lives is a kind of happiness, It provides a way to relieve extreme pain, and this conforms to humanism.4 Fouth , this way can free up medical funds to help other people and reduce the burden of family and society. In this regard,it takes family members’ interest and supplies a lot of benefits to society.5 so according to the previous paper, we have reasons to believe that euthanasia is a proper way, not only does it respect personal dignity,but also helps with social development. And it is the performance of human civilization progress too.That’s all my ideas ,thank you。

安乐死_英语辩论第一篇：安乐死_英语辩论(!)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.so we view that Euthanasia should not be legeled(!)Euthanasia stops the medicine developing.If the patients require using euthanasia, doctors won’t try their best to save patients.The medicine will stop progress.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”.Insurancecompanies 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 isreasonable? “According to the study of suicide, suicide and treatable 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's self-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.结尾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 allo w 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.” “ Euthanasia is humane because it helps to hasten the death of terminally ill patient.Death, as natural as birth, is sometimes a hard process that requires assistance, and euthanasia is part of such assistance.People have the right to die.It is unnecessary to maintain life artificially beyond the point when people will never regain consciousness.Extending an incurably ill patient’s lifemeans the same as aggravating his pain.Efforts should not be made to perpetuate what has become a meaningless existence.Euthanasia can bring mental and physical release to the patient and his family when he is terminally ill and has no prospect of recovering.Mercy killing is motivated by nothing but love and sympathy for the dying patient.Most of the terminally ill patients themselves want to die with dignity and peace instead of agony and degradation.Medical treatment for a comatose patient cause great burden economically for the hospital and the patient’s family.It is inhumane to perform euthanasia no matter how painless the process is.Anyone who voluntarily, knowingly or premeditatedly takes the life of another, even one minute prior to death, is a killer.Euthanasia is a criminal offense because it involves the killing of a person.Legalized euthanasia will invite abuse of human life because any form of murder many be conveniently dubbed “mercy killing ”by unscrupulous people.Euthanasia raises many moral issues since it implies that active measures are taken to terminate human life.Doctors and nurses should do everything they can to save dying patients instead of hastening their death by active measures.The instinct for self-preservation is the strongest instinct that human beings possess.It is untrue that any patient himself should want to die.Doctors and nurses involved in euthanasia have discredited their profession, for euthanasia is a violation of the fundamental medical principle to save human life.Mercy killing is one of the most controversial issues in the world of medicine.As the picture given above depicts, A late sick mother desperately ill son request for euthanasia.But the son was cut for this。

安乐死的看法英语作文关于安乐死的看法英语作文Directions： For this part you are allowed thirty minutes to write a composition on the topic Should Euthanasia Be Legalized? You should write no less than 150 words and base your composition on the outline （given in Chinese） below：1、有的人赞成实行安乐死2、有的人反对安乐死合法化3、我的看法。

范文：Euthanasia, a quiet and easy death, or “mercy killing” as we call it recently has made the headlines frequently. Many people applaud it and argue that euthanasia should be legalized.As is pointed out, to practise euthanasia can benefit both the patient and his family. To a terminally ill person who is suffering excruciating pains day and night or living “like a vegetable”, to be allowed to end his life painlessly is a good release. To his family it is also a big relief considering the financial and emotional drain on them that having to sustain his life entails. However, the legalization of euthanasia may also bring with it problems our society has not previously faced. Is it humane, for example, that a terminally ill patient is thus caused to feel guilty for remaining alive because he does not want to die? Is it wise that a patient is killed alive simply because of a mistaken terminal diagnosis? And is it possible that euthanasia could be taken advantage of for some ulterior or even criminal purposes?Since the legalization of euthanasia will raise serious moral and social issues, the decision our society makes about euthanasia will undoubtedly have tremendous consequences insociety.单词：1. euthanasia：adj. 安乐死2. mercy：n. 仁慈，宽容；怜悯；幸运；善行3. headline：n. 大标题；内容提要；栏外标题；头版头条新闻4. applaud：vt. 赞同；称赞；向…喝采5. legalized：adj. 合法的6. benefit：vt. 有益于，对…有益7. terminally：adv. 处于末期症状上8. excruciating：adj. 折磨人的；使苦恼的`9. painlessly：adv. 无痛苦地，不费力地10. relief：n. 减轻，解除；安慰11. drain：n. 消耗12. sustain：vt. 维持13. legalization ：n. [法] 合法化；法律认可14. guilty：adj. 有罪的；内疚的15. diagnosis：n. 诊断16. ulterior：adj. 隐秘不明的17. criminal：adj. 刑事的；犯罪的；罪恶的18. purpose：n. 目的；用途19. moral：adj. 道德的20. issue：n. 问题21. undoubtedly：adv. 确实地，无庸置疑地22. tremendous：adj. 极大的，巨大的；惊人的23. consequence：n. 结果词组：1. point out：指出2. day and night：日以继夜3. like a vegetable：像一个植物人4. be allowed to do sth.：被允许做某事5. take advantage of：利用句子分析：To a terminally ill person who is suffering excruciating pains day and night or living “like a vegetable”, to be allowed to en d his life painlessly is a good release.1）who is suffering excruciating pains day and night or living “like a vegetable”做定语修饰a terminally ill person 2）to be allowed to end his life painlessly为整句句子的主语，his life指的是a terminally ill person’s life，所以整句句子的中心意思在最后，即：to be allowed to end his life painlessly is a good release。

英语作文：安乐死该合法化吗英语作文：安乐死该合法化吗安乐死 Should Euthanasia Be Legalized？Directions： For this part you are allowed thirty minutes to write a composition on the topic Should Euthanasia Be Legalized？You should write no less than 150 words and base your composition on the outline （given in Chinese） below：1.有的人赞成实行安乐死2.有的人反对安乐死合法化3.我的看法。

范文：Euthanasia， a quiet and easy death，or “mercy killing” as we call it recently has made the headlines frequently. Many people applaud it and argue that euthanasia should be legalized.安乐死，一个安静的，容易死亡，或“安乐死”，因为我们称之为最近的头条新闻频繁。

许多人都为之喝彩，并认为安乐死应该合法化。

As is pointed out， to practise euthanasia can benefit both the patient and his family. To a terminally ill person who is suffering excruciating pains day and night or living “like a vegetable”， to be allowed to end his life painlessly is a good release. To his family it is also a big relief considering the financial and emotional drain on them that having to sustain his life entails. However， the legalization of euthanasia may also bring with it problems our society has not previously faced. Is it humane， for example， that a terminally ill patient is thus caused to feel guilty for remaining alive because he does not want to die？ Is it wise that a patient is killed alive simply because of a mistaken terminal diagnosis？And is it possible that euthanasia could be takenadvantage of for some ulterior or even criminal purposes？正如所指出的'那样，实行安乐死可以造福病人和他的家人。

Mercy killing is one of the most controversial issues in the world of medicine. As the picture given above depicts, A late sick mother desperately ill son request for euthanasia. But the son was cut for this。

feeling helpless because he is at a loss what to do about it.The picture really sets me thinking. It implies that people differ in their attitudes towards the mercy killing.Some people think it is right.but others dont think so.now let us listen to everyone's different opinions安乐死是医学界最有争议的问题之一。

正如上面所示的视频所描绘的，一位晚期患病母亲病入膏肓，请求儿子实施安乐死。

但儿子且为此获罪，感到无能为力，因为他们不知道该怎么办。

这幅画确实发人深省。

它暗示，人们在对待安乐死上看法不一致。

有些人认为他是对的，但其他的不这样认为，现在让我们听听大家的不同观点赞成1.If a person loses the survivability of the community has not contributed to lose the meaning of life.reduce reliance on others and a burden on society.如果一个人失去了生存能力，对社会没有了贡献，也就失去了生命的意义，减少对别人的倚赖和对社会的负担。

安乐死该不该合法化正方观点名词解释：安乐死有“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。

目前医学界对“安乐死”并没有统一的定义，不过在操作层面，主要可分为[1]：主动安乐死（Active Euthanasia）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（Passive Euthanasia）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。

[2]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。

安乐死的对象是没有治疗希望的人。

安乐死指对无法救治的病人停止治疗或使用药物，让病人无痛苦地死去。

“安乐死”一词源于希腊文，意思是"幸福"的死亡。

它包括两层含义，一是安乐的无痛苦死亡；二是无痛致死术；我国的定义指患不治之症的病人在垂危状态下，由于精神和躯体的极端痛苦，在病人和其亲友的要求下，经医生认可，用人道方法使病人在无痛苦状态中结束生命过程。

对重度精神病患者、重度残疾人及处于不可逆昏迷中的植物人，实施使其在无痛苦感受中死去的行为。

狭义专指对身患绝症、临近死亡、处于极度痛苦之中的患者，实施安乐死促使其迅速无痛苦死亡的一种方式。

又称无痛苦死亡。

一般多指后者。

安乐死必须符合下列条件：①从现代医学知识和技术上看，病人患不治之症并已临近死期②病人极端痛苦，不堪忍受③必须是为解除病人死前痛苦，而不是为亲属、国家、社会利益而实施④必须有病人神志清醒时的真诚嘱托或同意伦理规范所承认的妥当方法。

安乐死辩论第一篇：安乐死辩论安乐死辩论我同意安乐死。

安乐死（Euthanasia）指对无法救治的病人停止治疗或使用药物，让病人无痛苦地死去。

“安乐死”一词源于希腊文，意思是“幸福”地死亡。

它包括两层含义，一是安乐的无痛苦死亡；二是无痛致死术。

中国的定义指患不治之症的病人在垂危状态下，由于精神和躯体的极端痛苦，在病人和其亲友的要求下，经医生认可，用人道方法使病人在无痛苦状态中结束生命过程。

安乐死的目的，对病人本身是为了避免死亡时的痛苦，对于社会来说，一方面是为了尊重病人的权利，给予病人尊严死去的自主权；另一方面也是为了节约有限的卫生资源，用于更需要又更有希望的病人身上，对病人、家属和社会均有利。

安乐死的对象，主要是那些患了绝症，目前无法救治，只是在人为条件下维持心跳、呼吸或意识已处于昏迷或完全丧失状态，虽生犹死的病人。

1.安乐死后盾——希波克拉底医派誓言，很多人认为希波克拉底医派誓言与安乐死背道而驰。

誓言的核心是医生必须尽力让病人康乐安宁，因此“禁止伤害”这一信条常被概括为希波克拉底医派誓言的总纲。

对“伤害”一词的理解，多数人仅仅停留在字面表层含义，即对病人生命的伤害。

但这里的“伤害”，指的无疑是“病人康乐安宁”这种状态，生命当然包含于其中。

然而，遇到“选择继续忍受病痛的剧烈折磨”或“一死了之”这种情况，有一点可以肯定，比起让病人活着，医生不协助病人实施安乐死对其伤害更大。

当然，这个问题仁者见仁，尚无定论。

2.安乐死挽救生命，2005年一调查显示，在荷兰施行的安乐死病例中，有0.4%的安乐死未经患者本人同意。

在该调查结束前，实施安乐死在荷兰已经合法化。

再看1991年的另一项调查，那时，安乐死在荷兰尚未取得立法许可。

调查结果显示，在实施过程中，有0.8%的安乐死执行未经患者本人同意。

对比两个调查结果，我们可以看到安乐死合法后的结果和人们预想相反；且未经患者同意便实施安乐死的情况减半。

以上数据说明，安乐死确实能挽救生命。

第1篇一、背景介绍随着医学技术的进步和社会观念的变迁，安乐死（euthanasia）这一议题在全球范围内引起了广泛的争议。

安乐死指的是在患者自愿的情况下，通过合法手段结束其生命的医疗行为。

在我国，安乐死尚未被法律允许，但相关讨论却日益激烈。

本案例将以安乐死争议为例，探讨法律无情与人道关怀之间的关系。

二、辩论双方观点正方：法律无情，应严格禁止安乐死1. 维护生命尊严：生命是神圣的，每个人都有生存的权利。

安乐死可能成为滥用权力的工具，导致无辜者被迫结束生命。

2. 法律权威：法律是社会公正的基石，对安乐死予以法律认可，将削弱法律的严肃性和权威性。

3. 医疗伦理：医生是救死扶伤的天使，安乐死违背了医生的职业道德和医疗伦理。

反方：人道关怀，应适度放宽安乐死限制1. 减轻患者痛苦：对于病痛折磨、无法治愈的患者，安乐死可以让他们在尊严中离世。

2. 尊重患者意愿：患者有权选择自己的生死，安乐死体现了对患者意愿的尊重。

3. 医疗资源分配：过度医疗资源浪费，安乐死有助于合理分配医疗资源。

三、辩论过程正方一辩：生命是神圣的，每个人都有生存的权利。

安乐死可能成为滥用权力的工具，导致无辜者被迫结束生命。

此外，法律是对社会公正的基石，对安乐死予以法律认可，将削弱法律的严肃性和权威性。

反方一辩：尊重患者意愿是至关重要的。

对于病痛折磨、无法治愈的患者，安乐死可以让他们在尊严中离世。

同时，安乐死有助于减轻患者的痛苦，体现对患者意愿的尊重。

正方二辩：医生是救死扶伤的天使，安乐死违背了医生的职业道德和医疗伦理。

此外，过度医疗资源浪费，安乐死可能导致医疗资源分配不均。

反方二辩：安乐死并非滥用权力，而是对患者意愿的尊重。

在严格的法律监管下，安乐死有助于减轻患者的痛苦，提高医疗资源利用效率。

正方三辩：法律无情，应严格禁止安乐死。

安乐死可能成为滥用权力的工具，导致无辜者被迫结束生命。

此外，法律是对社会公正的基石，对安乐死予以法律认可，将削弱法律的严肃性和权威性。

安乐死应该合法化反方辩词，一辩、二辩、三辩、四辩发言稿一辩反方发言稿：尊敬的评委、各位辩手、观众们：安乐死是一个极其敏感的话题，涉及到人们的生命和尊严，应该慎重对待。

作为反方，我认为安乐死不应该合法化。

以下是我的理由：首先，安乐死的合法化可能会导致滥用。

虽然安乐死的初衷是为了减轻患者的痛苦和痛苦的家庭成员，但是如果安乐死合法化，会有人滥用这项权利，把它当成一种逃避责任的方式。

一些家庭成员可能会利用安乐死来解决医疗费用的问题，或者为了继承财产而迫使患者选择安乐死。

这种滥用行为将会严重侵犯患者的权利和尊严。

其次，安乐死的合法化可能会对医生造成巨大的心理压力。

医生的职责是拯救生命，而不是结束生命。

如果安乐死合法化，医生将面临选择是否执行安乐死的困境。

这种选择将会对医生的职业道德和心理造成极大的压力和困扰。

最后，安乐死的合法化可能会对社会产生负面影响。

安乐死的合法化将会传递出一种消极的信息，即生命不值得珍惜。

这种信息将会对社会道德产生负面影响，导致人们对生命的看法变得越来越淡漠。

综上所述，我认为安乐死不应该合法化。

我们应该尽力帮助患者减轻痛苦，同时保护他们的尊严和权利，而不是通过结束生命来解决问题。

谢谢。

二辩反方发言稿：尊敬的评委、各位辩手、观众们：安乐死是一个极为复杂的话题，需要我们从多个角度去思考。

作为反方，我认为安乐死不应该合法化。

以下是我的理由：首先，安乐死的合法化将会对患者和家庭成员造成极大的心理压力。

患者和家庭成员将面临着一个艰难的决定，是否选择安乐死。

这种决定将会对他们的心理造成巨大的压力和困扰。

如果安乐死合法化，这种心理压力将会更加严重，因为他们将面临更多的选择和责任。

其次，安乐死的合法化将会对社会产生负面影响。

人们将会认为生命不值得珍惜，这将会导致社会的道德水平下降。

安乐死的合法化将会传递出一种消极的信息，即我们可以通过结束生命来解决问题。

这种信息将会对社会产生负面影响，导致人们对生命的看法变得越来越淡漠。

辩论赛论题：关于安乐死安乐死的概述安乐死（euthanasia）一词源于希腊文，意为无痛苦的死或安详的死。

《中国大百科全书·法学卷》对安乐死的解释是：对于现代医学无可挽救的逼近死亡的病人，医生在患者本人真诚委托的前提下，为减少病人难以忍受的剧烈痛苦，可以采取措施提前结束病人的生命。

[1]自20世纪30年代以来，西方国家就有人开始在法律上确认安乐死，为推动安乐死合法化而开展运动。

2001后4月10日，荷兰上下两院以绝对优势通过了安乐死合法化的法案，成为当今世界第一个将安乐死合法化的国家。

荷兰安乐死法案的主要内容有：1、患者身患不治之症在考虑成熟后，可以在自愿的原则下提出以“安乐死”的方式终结自己的生命。

2、当患者提出安乐死申请后，主治医生必须就患者的要求至少征询另一位同行意见，并同患者讨论除安乐死之外挽救其生命的其他方法，当一切努力均不可能时，方可为患者实施安乐死。

3、实施“安乐死”的手段必须属于医学方法，由主治医生向患者发放药物由患者自己服食中止生命，或由主治医生使用药物帮助病人结束生命。

荷兰安乐死法案，是世界上较早的且行之有效的安乐死成文立法之一。

[2]几十年来，理论界赞成安乐死观点的呈现了一个上升趋势，然而，反对安乐死的观点也是大有人在，双方针对安乐死本身展开多次交锋，其各自观点主要针对人的权利，公众道德，医生职责等多方面展开讨论。

笔者在此限于篇幅不再对此展开。

笔者认为，支持安乐死比反对派更为合法合理，反对派认为安乐死是不尊重生命权，安乐死合法化是对生命权的滥用。

其实不然，生命的真正价值在于其本身有意义，应是一个安逸、舒适而又有所收益的状态，绝不是病痛无限期的纠缠与折磨。

反而，这是对生命权不折不扣的亵渎与不尊重，笔者认为安乐死有其不可忽略的价值，安乐死应合法化。

一、安乐死应当合法化对施救无望而又忍受病痛煎熬的病人施予安乐死，对病人本身是种解脱，对病人家属是种宽慰，以下本文将从安乐死本身在刑法上的不违法性以及情理上的合理性上加以分析阐述。

20世纪是人类医学发展突飞猛进的世纪，人类战胜了如鼠疫、天花、肺结核等曾为不治之症的疾病。

但新的“死亡之症”，如心脑血管病、癌症、艾滋病等，又给人类带来更大的痛苦，攻克它们的难度也更大了。

经过科学家和医务工作者对这些疾病不懈研究，有很多绝症患者可以通过一定的治疗而延长自己的生存期[2]。

the 20th century is the century of development by leaps and bounds, human medicine human over such as plague, smallpox, tuberculosis was incurable disease. But the new \"die of disease\", such as cardio-cerebrovascular disease, cancer, AIDS, etc., and bring more pain to human beings, to overcome their difficulty also bigger. With the constant research of scientists and medical workers to these diseases, there are many terminally ill patients can be treated by a certain and prolong their survival [2].当然，这些患者经常都要接受复杂而痛苦的治疗，肉体和精神一次又一次地受折磨。

与此同时，高科技的医疗手段带来昂贵的不堪负担的费用，又使照顾和赡养自己的亲属心力交瘁。

由于某一具体时期医疗技术的极限，治愈的希望是没有的，患者处于毫无尊严可言的苟延残喘状态。

这些患者迫切希望通过无痛苦死亡，即安乐死，来结束这个状态，以使自己和亲属身心得到解脱，而现代医学也掌握了足够的方法能使病人安然死去。

还记得古希腊医生西博拉底的誓言吗：我将尽我的全力去辅助病人而决不损害他们！两千多年的这条训戒成为医生们的最高信条！而安乐死做为一个医学概念被提出时医生就被至于进退两难的境地！第一：一种法律的确立要有利于社会的进步！要保证公民的生存权，财产权，和追求幸福的权力！安乐死的立法将对法理，道德，伦理进行挑战甚置是颠复！没有甚重的态度，尽凭着对病人的一腔怜悯是不能成为立法的理由的！所以我方反对安乐死合法化。

Remember the vows of the ancient Greek doctor Hippocrates: I will do my best to save the patient and never harm them! This apothegm is the supreme creed of doctors! but when then euthanasia was proposed as a medical concept, the doctor was put in a dilemma! First: The establishment of a law must be conducive to social progress! To ensure that citizens have the right to life, property rights, and the pursuit of happiness! The euthanasia legislation would challenges the legal, moral and ethical. Without a careful attitude, relying on one's compassion for the patient cannot be a reason for legislation! Therefore, we oppose the legalization of euthanasia.中国有一句古话叫死者为大。