搜索
（各国对安乐死的态度）Therearedifferenteuthanasialawsineachcountry.TheBritishHouseofLordsSelectCommitteeonMedicalEthicsdefineseuthanasiaasadeliberateinterventionundertakenwiththeexpressintentionofendingalife,torelieveintractablesuffering.[2]IntheNetherlandsandFlanders,euthanasiaisunderstoodasterminationoflifebyadoctorattherequestofapatient.[3]Euthanasiaiscategorizedindifferentways,whichincludevoluntary,non-voluntary,orinvoluntary.Voluntaryeuthanasiaislegalinsomecountries.Non-voluntaryeuthanasiaisillegalinallcountries.Involuntaryeuthanasiaisusuallyconsideredmurder.[4]Asof2006,euthanasiaisthemostactiveareaofresearchincontemporarybioethics.[5]Insomecountriesthereisadivisivepubliccontroversyoverthemoral,ethical,andlegalissuesofeuthanasia.Thosewhoareagainsteuthanasiamayargueforthesanctityoflife,whileproponentsofeuthanasiarightsemphasizealleviatingsuffering,andpreservingbodilyintegrity,self-determination,andpersonalautonomy.[6]JurisdictionswhereeuthanasiaislegalincludetheNetherlands,Colombia,BelgiumandLuxembourg.1不同国家关于安乐死的法律定义是不同的，英国将安乐死定义为“蓄意干涉结束生命以进不能忍受的痛苦。”荷兰则将安乐死定义为”医生在病人的要求下终止其生命2目前安乐死是合法的司法管辖区包括荷兰、哥伦比亚、比利时和卢森堡。（安乐死支持者与反对者的主要观点）Historically,theeuthanasiadebatehastendedtofocusonanumberofkeyconcerns.AccordingtoeuthanasiaopponentEzekielEmanuel,proponentsofeuthanasiahavepresentedfourmainarguments:a)thatpeoplehavearighttoself-determination,andthusshouldbeallowedtochoosetheirownfate;b)assistingasubjecttodiemightbeabetterchoicethanrequiringthattheycontinuetosuffer;c)thedistinctionbetweenpassiveeuthanasia,whichisoftenpermitted,andactiveeuthanasia,whichisnotsubstantive(orthattheunderlyingprinciple–thedoctrineofdoubleeffect–isunreasonableorunsound);andd)permittingeuthanasiawillnotnecessarilyleadtounacceptableconsequences.Pro-euthanasiaactivistsoftenpointtocountriesliketheNetherlandsandBelgium,andstateslikeOregon,whereeuthanasiahasbeenlegalized,toarguethatitismostlyunproblematic.Similarly,Emanuelarguesthattherearefourmajorargumentspresentedbyopponentsofeuthanasia:a)notalldeathsarepainful;b)alternatives,suchascessationofactivetreatment,combinedwiththeuseofeffectivepainrelief,areavailable;c)thedistinctionbetweenactiveandpassiveeuthanasiaismorallysignificant;andd)legalisingeuthanasiawillplacesocietyonaslipperyslope,[52]whichwillleadtounacceptableconsequences.[37]:797–8Infact,inOregon,in2013,painwasn'toneofthetopfivereasonspeopleseekeuthanasia.Topreasonswerealossofdignity,andafearofburdeningothers.[53]IntheUnitedStatesin2013,47%nationwidesupporteddoctor-assistedsuicide.Thisincluded32%ofLatinos,29%ofAfrican-Americans,andalmostnobodywithdisabilities.[53]安乐死的争论往往集中在一些关键问题上支持者提出了四个观点1安乐死尊重了人们的生命自决权2相对于安乐死协助受死是一个更好的选择3允许安乐死未必会导致不可接受的后果反对者提出了三个观点1不是所有的死亡都是痛苦的2除了安乐死还有一些其它选择如主动停止治疗与结合有效的缓解疼痛3主动安乐死与被动安乐死在道德上有明显的区别。4合法化安乐死将地方社会在滑坡总结事实上在2013年疼痛并不是人们选择安乐死的最主要的原因，，最主要的原因是有失尊严与来自他人的恐惧。在美国2013年，全国范围内47%的人支持医生协助自杀。这包括32%的拉丁裔，29%的非裔美国人