《暗算》中钱总的英勇就义，时时回旋在我的脑海，让我屡屡想到人生一个重要的问题——死。钱总的那种情况，在今天发生的可能性已经非常小了。但是，在绝症疾病折磨下的人们，其身体和精神上的痛苦随着病情时间的拖延而与日俱增。是让他（她）们在安详中有尊严地去世，还是让他（她）们继续顽强地与病魔作斗争，是一个值得思考的大问题。2008年11月2日晚上的上海电视台新闻综合频道“1/7电视杂志节目”，播出了一个安乐死案件。我注意到在该案中，丈夫帮助久患重病的妻子自杀，被法院以故意杀人zui判处有期徒xing三年，缓xing四年。而该档节目中提到的若干年前陕西汉中一儿子帮助久病母亲自杀的an件中，儿子和为他帮忙的医生被宣判无zui。我想就下列问题请教大家的看法：1、帮助久患绝症，身心极度痛苦的病人自杀，是否构成犯罪？2、我们说“物权法定”，那么生命权是否也是法定的？是否可以由自己和相关利害关系人依照自己的意愿处置？自杀是否构成侵权（包括自己的生命权和相关情感利害关系人的精神权益？）如果构成侵权，如何追究法律责任？3、如果我们允许安乐死合法化，是否要以当事人自己的清醒意志及在此前提下的意思自治为前提？我们如何认定当事人，特别是久病不起的当事人神志是清醒，并在此情况下实施了意思自治的行为？4、如果我们允许安乐死合法化，由谁来最终做出安乐死的决定？是否需要公共权力机构的介入？上述问题请各位龙友不要见笑！！！

这个问题，我想知道大家方方面面的看法，伦理的，哲学的，科技的，还有法律的，谢谢！

从伦理、哲学、科技和法学上看，“权利”一词到底是什么内涵与本质？

当痛苦万分，又已知无法挽救，那么我更喜欢在安详中有尊严地去世，那是最好的结局。

如何厘清合理合法协助安乐死和谋杀之间的差别，这才是问题的关键！

偶有点晕,看了这个帖子

俺跟着晕..........................

唔～～雪帅锅的大喇叭越发语出惊人袅未知生，不言S哈，飘过.........

偶赞成实施安乐死.原因是,在俺的周围,有太多太多的人在极其不尊严的状态下生存着,与其如此活着,不如安乐死."死"便是最后的解脱,和最好的归宿.其他问题俺无言.路过......

真搞不懂，雪大律师的联想力也太丰富了点。钱之江之死、安乐死，两码事呵。

俺赞成安乐死，但估计相当长时间俺们国家没什么可能......会被钻法LV的空子，恐无辜被害......

欢迎大家各抒己见，给我开拓思路。请10楼的那个“座下”不要嚷。

钱之江之死、安乐死，偶觉得有点联系好死不如赖活.生命可贵,天地造化才有了生命,任何时候不可主动寻死. 世事难料,说不定会峰回路转呢?

钱之江之死、安乐死，偶觉得有点联系好死不如赖活.生命可贵,天地造化才有了生命,任何时候不可主动寻死. 世事难料,说不定会峰回路转呢?

ding

很难区分是自杀还是他杀。

我支持安乐死,但必须有严密的法律和监督手段.

把大律师打晕.On Physician-Assisted SuicidePart 1 Arguments Against1. It violates Medical Ethics. The Hippocratic Oath expressly forbids the giving of deadly medicine to anyone who asks. This ancient document also requires doctors to swear by Apollo and all the gods and goddesses. It also forbids the taking of fees for teaching medicine. This tells us that we have to judge each tenet by its own merits and not regard it as a final authority in all matters. The American Medical Association has consistently condemned physician-assisted suicide as an unethical practice. Nevertheless, attitudes may be changing. According to recent surveys a majority of doctors in some areas -- 60% in Oregon, 56% in Michigan, and 54% in Great Britain -- favor the practice in extreme circumstances. Specialists in medicine and ethics are not in agreement on the question. 2. It undermines trust between doctor and patient. We expect physicians to heal and preserve life, not to kill on request. I reply that I want to be able to trust my doctor to do what is best for me in every situation, including assisting me to die with dignity if life becomes an intolerable burden, and I choose not to live any longer. I would not ask a doctor to do anything illegal, but if physician-assisted death were permitted by law, I would not want to be abandoned in my final hours. The trust issue, then, works both ways. A doctor may be as likely to lose the confidence of patients by not consenting to their request for assistance in dying as by consenting. 3. It is God's place to decide the time and place of a person's death. I reply that assisted death is a moral issue that has to be resolved on the basis of principles we use to deal with every other question about right and wrong, not a special case. Moreover, the implication of this objection is that we should never interfere with the course of any life-threatening condition. If a person is bleeding to death from an accidental cut, should we not just watch and let death occur? To intervene would challenge God's prerogative to determine the time and place of death. In some cases this objection is made by proposing that to take innocent life is "playing God." Anyone who makes this claim ought to state the criteria that tell us when human action is about to encroach on divine prerogatives and on what basis this claim is made. Otherwise, it remains an empty assertion that contains nothing one can argue against rationally. It is not a self-evident, self-defining premise that settles the question merely by being invoked. Sometimes when one person accuses another of "playing God," the charge appears to be based on intuition or a feeling and is not associated with explicit principles or careful reasoning. 4. It is a slippery slope. If we permit even the most limited forms of assisted suicide, the argument goes, we might eventually be killing off the handicapped, the poor, the elderly, abnormal babies, and anyone else who becomes inconvenient. In this extreme form it is surely groundless, given the values that prevail in our society. Nevertheless, we should be deeply concerned about this and see to it that proper safeguards are instituted. However, the idea that one should not make a reasonable choice now because it might lead to other measures later is not a sound basis for policy making unless (1) subsequent moves are inevitable and (2) are clearly wrong. Neither is necessarily the case. The guard against slippery slopes is the virtue, character, and good sense of the majority of our citizens. Our hope is that reasonable people know when to draw a line between going far enough and going too far. It is not at all clear that where the line is presently drawn is where it ought to be drawn. A More Extended Treatment 

5. It is killing. Nearly everyone agrees that sometimes it is permissible to cause the death of another. The question in each case is whether the action is justified under the circumstances. The same is true of assisted death. 6. The patient may be depressed temporarily or may undergo a change of mind. Depression, when present, should be treated. Patients should be given sufficient time and counseling to enable them to make sure their decision represents their deepest wishes. But at some point we have to decide whether patients are to be permitted to be the authors of their own destiny or not. 7. It violates the crucial difference between passive and active procedures. The argument is that there is a decisive moral difference between (1) letting nature take its course by ceasing or withholding treatment in hopeless cases when death is close and certain and (2) taking active steps that deliberately hasten death. I reply that this distinction in and of itself is not morally crucial. To put the focus here misses a far more important point. The proper question is this: What is the best thing to do under certain extreme circumstances? The answer may be: (1) cease futile treatment, or (2) do something that will bring about a merciful death that shortens the time of intolerable, unnecessary suffering. The patient may legitimately request either one, and we may morally comply. Death occurs in either instance, and human choice and agency are involved in both. More Detailed Consideration 8. A misdiagnosis could occur, or a miracle cure might happen. Perhaps, but keeping this in mind implies that we should be extremely cautious not that we should never act under any circumstances. Besides, the possibility of an unexpected recovery or a misdiagnosis implies that we must do absolutely everything in our power to extend life as long as possible. Hence, we would never cease or withhold treatment even though the case looked hopeless if so doing hastened death ever so slightly. 9. Ending life to relieve suffering interferes with the role that suffering plays in God's plan. The extreme view that all suffering is sent by God to serve a purpose implies that we should never do anything to relieve suffering of any kind. It is true that suffering may lead to spiritual gains and moral maturity, but not all suffering does. In any case, most people would agree that it is our duty to relieve suffering to the extent that is possible, especially that which is excruciating and robs life of its meaning and joy. If this is the case, one can reasonably argue that in some extreme cases relieving suffering takes priority over extending life. 10. Personal autonomy is not absolute. We wisely do not allow people to do anything they want, even if the consequences will affect them most or altogether. We do not allow people to duel with lethal weapons. We do not permit people to sell themselves into slavery. And, so the argument goes, we do not have a right to have other people kill us or assist us in committing suicide. Deciding what choices should be wisely left to individuals and which options should be forbidden by law is difficult for any society. We have been divided over the abortion question for many decades. Often society changes its mind. Once certain sexual practices between consenting adults were forbidden. Now we recognize that this was an unnecessary and unwise intrusion of the government into private affairs. My argument is that when it comes to the ultimate matter of choosing death to relieve unbearable suffering for which there is no remedy, it is time for the state to stop interfering with a decision made by the person whose life and death are at stake. The choice should rest with the only person who is experiencing the intolerable agony that cannot be relieved. 

11. Bad consequences would follow. Guidelines would inevitably be violated. Mistakes would be made. Patients might feel guilty for staying alive and choose death to lift the financial burden or the strain on loved ones. Families out of desperation and emotional exhaustion might give up too quickly and give their support to ending the misery of a relative. Some patients might conclude that their lives were not valued if society provided a way to kill them. Doctors might feel less obligation to provide the best possible care if administering death were available as a solution to the agonies of life. Society might be tempted to put less priority on providing needed assistance for the disabled, the poor, and minorities and let the choice of death make things easier and cheaper. We might all become less sensitive to suffering and more callous about death once we got used to the idea of choosing death as a way out of life's tribulations. So the list goes. These dangers must be taken seriously, and steps taken to prevent them if assisted death becomes legal. Let us notice that no arrangement is free from abuse. Many of the pressures that might be felt by patients and families or urged on them by institutions already exist with regard to the approved practice of withdrawing life-sustaining treatment. Since doctors can administer heavy doses of pain medicine that hasten death, the present system allows for covert instances of assisted death. Fewer abuses might occur if current practices were open to scrutiny and regulation. Far from lessening efforts to manage suffering, the option of assisted death might well inspire greater efforts to make life tolerable for patients so that they would not want to die. The main abuse now existing, however, is that by denying terminally-ill patients a choice in hopeless situations, we consign those whose misery cannot be relieved to pointless, needless agony. Part 2 Arguments ForDeciding what is right is especially difficult when the permissibility of deliberately ending a human life is involved. In these extreme situations the normal rules of morality are stretched to the breaking point. Self-defense against a would-be murderer, killing enemy soldiers in war, capital punishment for the most horrendous crimes, intentional suicide by a spy to prevent torture or a coerced disclosure of vital military information, killing a berserk man who is systematically murdering a line of hostages -- all these instances pose questions that severely test our moral wisdom. Nearly everyone would agree that in some of the cases listed it would be legitimate to end a life deliberately. This fact tells us that killing a person is not always and necessarily regarded as wrong. It all depends upon the circumstances. Now enters the question of physician-assisted death. I want to make a cautious argument that under some carefully limited circumstances, it is permissible for a physician to assist a person hasten death to end unwanted, intolerable, unnecessary suffering. This includes providing medicines or other means the patient can use to commit suicide or by directly administering medicines that end the patient's life.