ON JULY 10th two people died whose lives, though long, were shortened by design and with others’ help. Sir Edward Downes, a British conductor, and his wife Joan had travelled to Switzerland, where the law on assisted suicide is the world’s most liberal. He was 85, partly deaf and almost completely blind; she was 74 and had terminal cancer. Holding hands and watched by their son and daughter, they drank a lethal dose of barbiturates and died. In most of the Western world, suicide is not a crime, but helping another to commit it is. But not all the incapacitated, or terminally ill, or permanently despairing are willing to wait for a natural death, or to take messy and uncertain measures to kill themselves without medical help. Increasingly, they travel to Switzerland, where assisting suicide is a crime only if it is done for gain (around 100 foreigners each year die at Dignitas, a suicide clinic in Zurich) and lobby their governments to change the law at home. In only a few places—Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, the American states of Oregon and Washington—have such efforts succeeded. Most countries muddle along, turning a blind eye to those determined and rich enough to travel to Switzerland. Dignitas。 British police are investigating the deaths of Sir Edward and Lady Downes, as they have previously investigated the deaths of at least 100 such “suicide tourists”. In no case have they prosecuted those who accompanied the suicides. But last week an amendment that would have guaranteed such people exemption from prosecution, subject to safeguards, was defeated in the House of Lords. The current law, said its defenders, showed a “stern face and a kind heart”, deterring the avaricious from shuffling elderly relatives off to die before they wasted their assets on nursing-home fees, while refraining from vengeance on the broken-hearted bereaved. Legal fudge is never desirable, and in this case it is unnecessary. It is perfectly possible to frame a law that allows suffering people who are close to death to die quickly and peacefully, if they wish, without declaring open season on old folk. The suicide-seeker declares he is not being pressured to kill himself; two doctors agree, and testify that he is terminally ill and of sound mind. A waiting period before lethal drugs are dispensed ensures that the desire for death is a settled one. Apart from Switzerland, those places that allow assisted suicide have similar safeguards. Such systems do not seem to lead to the normalisation of unnatural death, and thus a steadily rising number of suicides; rather, after an initial surge, the number seeking help to die drops and then stays steady. A law of this sort would have allowed Lady Downes to die as she wished in her own country. But it would not have covered Sir Edward, old, frail and soon to be bereaved one way or another—but not terminally ill. Nor would Daniel James, a 23-year-old Briton whose parents accompanied him to Dignitas last year, have come within its remit. He had been paralysed in a rugby accident, and wanted to die, but could not kill himself without help. Though severely disabled, he was not terminally ill and could have expected to live for many years. There is a strong case for allowing people like Sir Edward and Mr James to be helped to die. Their lives were their own, and they wanted to end them. But there is too great a danger that if those who are not terminally ill are allowed an easy way out, greedy relations will put pressure on the elderly to choose to die. Such people should, therefore, be denied that right—however unkind that may seem. The terminally ill, however, should be offered the help they seek. To deny it to them is to add cruelty to misfortune. | 2009年7月10日，l兩位老人親自結(jié)束了他們的生命，盡管他們可以活的更久，但卻在他人的幫助下有意的縮短了自己的生命。愛德華唐斯，一名英國指揮家，和他的妻子瓊前往瑞士——世界上的一個(gè)給與人們生命自由的國家。愛德華唐斯今年85歲，他雙目失明，耳朵也幾乎聽不到聲音。他的妻子瓊74歲，患了晚期癌癥。他們彼此手牽著手，在兒女們的注視下，一起服下了致命劑量的巴比妥酸鹽，他們共同走向了死亡。 在大多數(shù)西方國家，自殺是不是犯罪，但幫助他人則被視為犯罪。但并非所有的喪失勞動能力，患有不治之癥，或限于絕望之中的人愿意等待自然死亡，他們也并非愿意在沒有醫(yī)療幫助得情況下采取混亂和不確定的方法來自殺。越來越多的人前往瑞士——在那里幫助提出需求的人自殺不被視為犯罪行為（每年大約100名外國人在丹尼特斯結(jié)束自己的生命 ——蘇黎世的一家協(xié)助自殺的診所)。只有少數(shù)幾個(gè)地方——比利時(shí)，盧森堡，荷蘭，美洲國家的俄勒岡州和華盛頓州的努力取得了成功。大多數(shù)國家對那些下定決心和前往瑞士丹尼特斯富有的人視而不見。 英國警方正在調(diào)查愛德華及其夫人的死因，警方在此之前已經(jīng)調(diào)查過至少100多起“游客自殺的案件”。一般情況下他們決不會起訴那些陪同自殺者的人。但上周的一項(xiàng)修正案——保證這些人免于被起訴，以保障他們的權(quán)利——在上議院被駁回。 現(xiàn)行法律稱其捍衛(wèi)者表現(xiàn)出“嚴(yán)面善心”，雖然自殺會提前結(jié)束他們的生命，但這不僅使那些身患絕癥的老人身心免遭傷害，同時(shí)也減少了在療養(yǎng)院不必要的資金浪費(fèi)。 法律從來都不是完美的，在這種情況下，法律就顯得不必要了。但是在那樣的情況下，是完全有可能建立起法律框架的——使遭受病痛折磨的人在安靜和迅速中走向死亡，如果他們愿意，也沒有必要向家屬公開。想要尋求自殺者稱：對于自殺，他沒有感到壓力。兩名醫(yī)生也同意樂，并且證實(shí)他已身患絕癥和心智也在衰竭。 在等死亡到來之前，致命的藥物已經(jīng)分發(fā)了——這對于確?；颊邔?shí)現(xiàn)死亡的愿望是關(guān)鍵的一步。除了瑞士，一些允許協(xié)助自殺的地方也有類似的保障措施。 這種制度似乎并沒有引導(dǎo)走向非自然的正常死亡，結(jié)果導(dǎo)致想要自殺者的數(shù)量在不斷增長。然而在經(jīng)過最初數(shù)量的激增之后，尋求死亡幫助的人的數(shù)量在下降，然后趨于穩(wěn)定。 諸如此類的法律能夠幫助唐斯夫人實(shí)現(xiàn)在她的國家死亡的愿望。但是它卻不能實(shí)現(xiàn)愛德華先生的愿望——年老、衰弱和即將離去的一種或另一種方式——但不是絕癥。 也不會是詹姆斯丹尼爾， 一個(gè)23歲的英國人，去年，在他父母的陪同下去了丹尼特斯。 他在一場橄欖球比賽中發(fā)生了意外，丹尼爾想要死亡，但他不能在沒有幫助的情況下結(jié)束自己的生命。 盡管他已經(jīng)嚴(yán)重殘疾，彈他未身患絕癥，并且可以繼續(xù)活許多年。 還有很多像愛德華先生和詹姆斯一樣情況，想要獲得死亡幫助的人。 他們的生活是自己的，并且希望結(jié)束自己的生活。 但是如果他們沒有身患絕癥而被允許輕易地結(jié)束自己的生命，一些貪婪的親戚可能給這些老人施加壓力，迫使他們選擇死亡，這對他們是有很大危險(xiǎn)的。 因此，這些人應(yīng)當(dāng)被剝奪這一權(quán)利，這樣，不由善就可能被人們識破。然而如果真正身患絕癥想要尋求幫助，人們則應(yīng)當(dāng)予以理解與幫助。否則那是增加病人的不幸。 |
