研究生英语精读课程Unit Two.doc

Unit Two Active and Passive Euthanasia [ 1 ]The distinction between active and passive euthanasia* is thought to be crucial* for medical ethics*. The idea is that it is permissible, at least in some cases, to withhold* treatment and allow a patient to die, but it is never permissible to take any direct action designed to kill the patient. This doctrine seems to be accepted by most doctors, and it is endorsed* in a statement adopted by the House of Delegates of the American Medical Association on December 4, 1973. The intentional termination of life of one human being by another - mercy killing - is contrary to that for which the medical profession stands and is contrary to the policy of the American Medical Association①. The cessation* of the employment of extraordinary means to prolong* the life of the body when there is irrefutable evidence that biological death is imminent* is the decision of the patient and/or her immediate family①. The advice and judgment of the physician should be freely available to the patient and/or his immediate family. However, a strong case can be made against this doctrine. In what follows I will set out some of the relevant arguments and urge doctors to reconsider their views on this matter. ［2］To begin with a familiar type of situation, a patient who is dying of incurable cancer of the throat is in terrible pain, which can no longer be satisfactorily alleviated*. He is certain to die within a few days, even if present treatment is continued, but he does not want to go on living for those days since the pain is unbearable. So he asks the doctor for an end to it, and his family joins in the request. ［3］Suppose the doctor agrees to withhold treatment, as the conventional doctrine* says he may. The justification for his doing so is that the patient is in terrible agony*, and since he is going to die anyway, it would be wrong to prolong his suffering needlessly. But now notice this. If one simply withholds treatment, it may take the p