Lesson 4

Die as You Choose

 

Text

  The need for laws on euthanasia cannot be dodged for much longer.

  In one of the world’s smaller countries, mercy-killing is accepted by the medical establishment and openly practiced a few thousand times each year. In one of the world’s biggest countries, euthanasia is condemned by the medical establishment, secretly practiced many times more often, and almost never comes to light. Which of these countries has a mercy-killing doctor now languishing in its jails? It is the small one, Holland, which has rules for euthanasia and so can police it effectively. The Dutch doctor broke his country’s rules. There is a moral here for all the countries, and not just for the big death-forbidding country, America. Right now it is going over the arguments about euthanasia once again.

  In January the Journal of the American Medical Association published a bizarre letter, in which an anonymous doctor claimed to have killed a 20-year-old cancer patient at her own request. This started a debate that will rumble on into the autumn, when Californians may vote on a proposed law legalizing euthanasia. The letter was probably written for polemical impact. It is scarcely credible. Its author claims that he (or she) met the cancer patient for the first time, heard five words from her-“let’s get this over with” –then killed her. Even the most extreme proponents of euthanasia do not support such an action in those circumstances.

  You medical monstrosities that are hardly any better undoubtedly continue, almost as a matter of macabre routine, in America, Britain and many other countries. It is disturbingly easy to find doctors who will say, in private, that they sometimes kill patients on purpose. Most say they know somebody else who does. But because they can rarely discuss euthanasia openly with patients-even when those patients beg them for it-doctors tend to kill only when the dying are too far gone to consent. Thus, because voluntary euthanasia is taboo, a doctor makes the decision himself-and the patient is killed involuntarily in the night with a syringe. That is one price of keeping euthanasia secret.

  If all forms of mercy-killing are wrong, they should remain taboo. But are they? Because many people accept that it is sad, undignified and gruesome to prolong the throes of death with all the might of medical technology, passive euthanasia-letting patient die-is widely accepted. Most American states have “living-will” legislation that protects doctors from prosecution if they do not try to save someone who has said he does not want life prolonged. Active euthanasia-killing-remains controversial. How long can the distinction between killing and letting die hold out?

  Just as there can be culpable omissions, so too can there be blameless acts. Suppose-to take an example from the moral philosophy books-that a man stands to gain from the death of a certain child. The child strikes his head in the bath and falls unconscious. The man sits down and watches him drown. The fact that the man has performed no action does not excuse him. Similarly, suppose that a doctor does no wrong by withholding some treatment in order that death should come sooner rather than later. Is he then necessarily wrong if he administers enough painkillers to kill? Does the fact that the doctor performed an action, rather than an omission, condemn him?

  Many doctors working on the battlefield of terminal suffering think that only squeamishness demands a firm difference between passive and active euthanasia on request. They argument for  killing goes like this: one of a doctor’s duties is to prevent suffering; sometimes that is all there is left for him to do, and killing is the only way to do it. There is nothing new in this view. When Hippocrates formulated his oath for doctors and thinker disagreed with his ban.

  Let the past be a guide.

  Some people believe that the time of death is appointed by God and that no should put the clock back on another. Yet if a patient’s philosophical views embrace euthanasia, it is not clear why the religious objection of others should intrude on his death. Another worry is that a legal framework for euthanasia, permitting a doctor to comply with a dying man’s request in a prescribed set of circumstances, might pose dangers for society by setting a precedent for killing. That depends on the society. Holland, arguably, is ready for it. It is probably no coincidence that it was Dutch doctors who most heroically resisted pressure to join in the Nazi medical atrocities that have given euthanasia its worst name. The same tenacious respect for individual liberty that stopped them killing healthy people, who did not want to die, now lets them help dying people who do.

  West Germany, by contrast, will not be able to legalize any form of euthanasia for a long time to come. Opposition is too fierce, because of the shadow of the past. Countries with an uninterrupted recent libertarian tradition have less to fear from setting some limited rules for voluntary euthanasia. By refusing to discuss it, they usher in something worse.

 

A . Answer the following questions on the text:

  1 . Is euthanasia openly practiced in Holland?

     Yes, it is.

  2 . Why did the doctors in the U.S. sometimes secretly practice euthanasia without consulting the dying patients?

 Because the doctors practiced euthanasia was condemned by USA. (Because they can rarely discuss euthanasia openly with patients, they tend to kill only when the dying are too far gone to consent.)

  3 . what is the difference between passive euthanasia and active euthanasia? Do you think they make any difference?

Passive euthanasia means letting patients die and active euthanasia means to kill on the patients’ request.  Well, passive euthanasia that the doctor has performed no action and active euthanasia that the doctor killed the patients with strings.  

  4 . What is a “living-will”?

    “Living-will” is a document form a patient, saying that he does not want life prolonged.

  5 . Did Hippocrates prohibit euthanasia? Did most ancient Greek doctors and thinkers agree with his ban? What did the author want to tell the reader by presenting this historical fact?

Yes, he did and most ancient Greek doctors and thinkers didn’t agree with his ban.

The author tend to advocate use the euthanasia by presenting this historical fact.

  6 . What is the danger involved if euthanasia is legalized?

     That might be pose danger for society by setting precedent for killing.

  7 . Why did the author say that West Germany will not be able to legalize any form of euthanasia for a long time to come?

    The opposition is too fierce because of the shadow of the past.

  8 . What is the author’s view on euthanasia?

  The author tend to advocate use the euthanasia

 B . Translate the following into Chinese:

  1 . The need for laws on euthanasia cannot be dodged for much longer.

    人们需要有关安乐死的法律，而且不可能长期回避这种需求。

  2 . In Holland mercy-killing is accepted by the medical establishment and openly practiced a few thousand times each year.

     在荷兰，安乐死被医疗机构所接受，并且每年有上千例被公开实施。(在荷兰，安乐死得到医疗机构的普遍认可，每年都有数千例得以公开实施。)

  3 . The debate on euthanasia will rumble on into the autumn, when Californians may vote on a proposed law legalizing euthanasia.

  这场关于安乐死的讨论将喋喋不休一直持续到秋天，而加尼弗尼亚州将对提出的议案及安乐死合法化进行表决。(有关安乐死的辩论会轰轰烈烈地持续到秋季，那时加尼弗尼亚州可能会就提出的一项使安乐死合法化的法律进行投票表决。)

  4 . many people accept that it is sad, undignified and gruesome to prolong the throes of death with all the might of medical technology.

  许多人接受这样的观点，即采用医学科技来延长临终者痛苦的寿命是令人伤心的，卑鄙的，令人厌恶的。(许多人都接受这样的观点，即依靠医学技术的力量延续死亡带给人的痛苦是令人悲哀，有失尊严，可憎可恶的做法。)

  5 . How long can the distinction between killing and letting die hold out?

    将人杀死与让人死亡之间的界限还能维持多久呢？

  6 . Is he then necessarily wrong if he administers enough painkillers to kill? Does the fact that the doctor performed an action, rather than an omission, condemn him?

   如果他使用足够量的镇痛剂致使病人死亡，他就一定是错误的吗？这个事实是这位医生做了他该做的，而不是袖手旁观，我们能因为这个而责备他吗？(这位医生采取了某种行动，而不是未尽某种职责，这会使他有罪吗？)

  7 . It is probably no coincidence that it was Dutch doctors who most heroically resisted pressure to join in the Nazi medical atrocities.

    正是荷兰医生最英勇地顶住了压力，拒绝参与曾使安乐死名声狼藉的纳粹用人体进行医学实验的暴行。这恐怕不是巧合。

  8 . Countries with an uninterrupted recent libertarian tradition have less to fear from setting some limited rules for voluntary euthanasia.

   在那些近年来自由意志的传统未受任何干扰的国家里，为自愿安乐死制定优先的规定并不会给人们带来太多的恐惧。

C . Fill in the blank in each sentence with the best word or expression from the box below, changing its form when necessary:

  Dodge,  drown,  intrude,  legalize,  oath,  withhold,  precedent,  rumble,  taboo,  credible,  arguable,  usher

  1 . She skillfully (dodged) the questions about her private life.

  2 . It was very rude of him to (intrude) on my privacy.

  3 . The schools decided to (withhold) payment until they had completed the construction of the building.

  4 . Reform and Open-door policy has (ushered) in a new era of economic development.

  5 . They started a campaign to (legalize) abortion.

  6 . If you let the boy go without punishment, he will use it as a (precedent) for doing wrong again.

  7 . After the exposure of his lies the Congressman is no longer a (credible) politician.

  8 . It is (arguable) that primary school students should pay any tuition.

D . Choose the right word or expression in the brackets to complete each of the following sentences:

  1 . The warrior managed to (dodge) the arrow that came flying through the air.

             a . evade  b . dodge

  2 . The speaker’s last few words were (drowned out) by the audience’s thunderous applause.

              a . drowned out  b . stopped

  3 . Would I be (intruding) if I joined in your discussion?

              a . intruding  b . invading

  4 . The (omission) of a full stop at the end of the sentence is a deliberate act by the writer.

               a . omission  b . exclusion

  5 . The newly-recruited soldiers swore an (oath) of loyalty to their country.

                 a . oath   b . promise

  6 . The suspect was accused of (withholding) some important evidence from the court.

               a . preventing     b . withholding

  7 . Whether or not he is the best person for the promotion is (debatable).

                a . debatable   b . arguable

  8 . He has established himself as a (credible) businessman.

                a . credible   b . believable

E . Explain the underline words in English:

  1 . The need for laws on euthanasia cannot be dodged for much longer.

Mercy-killing

The act of causing death painlessly

  2 . The letter was probably written for polemical impact.

   Producing the effect of debate

  3 . Thus, because voluntary euthanasia is taboo…

Something is forbidden

Social prohibition that result from tradition

  4 . …with all the might of medical technology…

    Great power

  5 . …by setting a precedent for killing.

   Setting a example that may justify later killing

  6 . …only squeamishness demands a firm difference between…

    oversensitiveness

  7 . Active euthanasia-killing-remains controversial.

     Likely to cause prolonged arguments

  8 . Yet if a patient’s philosophical views embrace euthanasia…

     Adopt eagerly

F . Translate the following into English:

  现在迫切…

G . Write a short passage of 150-200 words in English on the topic “How Is Euthanasia Holland in Different Countries?” You should cover the following point:

  1 . How euthanasia is practiced in Holland;

  2 . the situation in America, Britain and many other countries;

  3 . what the biggest worry is if euthanasia is legalized.