5.Euthanasia is properly regulated.
5.安乐死得到合理监管
Those who oppose euthanasia often cite the horror stories of patients being euthanized without consent or for unethical or impure reasons. Granted, the history of euthanasia is not without its fair share of horror stories and because of the gravity of its practice, it does need to be regulated. However, this is not reason enough to say that it cannot be properly regulated. Developed nations like the Netherlands have legalized euthanasia and have had only minor problems from its legalization. Any law or system can be abused, but that law and system can always be refined to prevent such abuse from happening. In the same way, it is possible to properly and effectively regulate euthanasia as various first world countries have done. More so because the process of euthanasia itself as it is being argued here, requires competent consent from the patient. It is important to consider the protection of both the physicians as well as the patients. The critical element in the regulation of euthanasia will be determining the line between what is considered to be euthanasia and what is considered to be murder.
反对安乐死的人经常引用一些未经同意、或者由于不道德的原因而安乐死的病人的恐怖故事。诚然，安乐死的历史发展与骇人听闻的事件相随，而且，也因其操作关乎人命，所以的确需要规范安乐死。但是，这也并不能充分说明安乐死得到合理监管。一些发达国家，比如荷兰，已经将安乐死合法化，而且在合法化过程中只出现过一些小问题。任何法律和制度可以被滥用，但是法律和制度又总是能阻止此类滥用的出现。同时，就像众多第一世界国家所取得的成效一样，我们可以对安乐死进行合理有效的监管。由于安乐死本身就具有争议性，因此更多的监管措施需要取得病人的同意。同时，保护医生和病人也非常重要。安乐死监管中至关重要的一点是划清安乐死与谋杀的界限。

4.Everyone has a right to a good death, therefore a good death must not be denied to those who want one.
4.每个人都有安然离世的权利，所以对于那些希望安乐死的人来说，这种死法万不能被否决

Nobody thinks of their death and desires it to be extremely painful or horrible. Rational human beings desire a good, dignified end to an ideally long and fruitful life. Circumstance, like luck, may not always be in your favor. It may not even be a terminal disease, which is so frequently used in pro-euthanasia arguments. It can be as savage as a freak accident or as simple as falling down the stairs to put you in a world of excruciating pain. While this is never to be wished on anyone, for those that have had the misfortune of being diagnosed with a terminal or painfully debilitating disease must have a choice out of it. Do we, who so desire a good death, have the right to judge others' state when we know nothing of it? Do we have the right to compare their experiences day by day, having experienced none of them, and say that they don't deserve to die with dignity, the way they want to die? The answer is of course, no, we have no right to deny them the dignified death that we ourselves naturally desire. To do so would be selfish and we would effectively be imposing our own desires on that person, thereby restricting their freedom to self-determine even if it is in the most basic sense.
没有人希望自己在极度痛苦中死去。凡是有理智的人都希望能有尊严地去往极乐世界。但是现实，比如意外状况，并不总是如你愿。病人所患的疾病可能不是绝症，这个论点经常被用来反驳安乐死的支持者。或许是一场突如其来的车祸，或许是从楼梯上摔下来，都可能给你带来极度的痛苦。没有人希望这样的事发生在自己身上，那些被不幸诊断为绝症、或令人痛苦的虚损性疾病的人必须做出选择以摆脱痛苦。渴望安然离世的我们在什么都不知道的情况下是否有权力评判其他人的状况？我们是否有权力将他们每一天的病情进行比较，没有切身经历过他们的痛苦，就评判他们平静地离世是不值得的？答案当然是否定的，我们没有权力去否定他们有尊严的死法，而那种死法正是我们所希望的。这种做法是自私的，这是将我们自己的意愿强加在别人身上，所以即使是在最恶劣的情况下，我们也要保护每个人自我决定的自由。

3.Euthanasia does not shorten lifespans by as much as is portrayed.
3.安乐死并不如传闻般缩短人的寿命

Many arguments opposing euthanasia are based on the premise that the patient's life should be preserved because of the possibility of their recovery. Statistics however, paint a different picture. A Dutch survey conducted in 1991 showed that 86% of Euthanasia cases only shortened the life of the patient by a maximum of 1 week. The standard time it shortened their life was by a few hours only. This clearly shows that terminal illness is statistically terminal. Add in the fact that in the majority of these cases, the patients were in extreme agony, the numbers show you that terminally ill patients are using euthanasia to end the suffering where they would have had near impossible chances of recovery. This is not the same as the ideal painted by opponents of euthanasia, wherein the patient may have a chance to survive and make a miraculous recovery. It is because the numbers are so heavily indicative of euthanasia as an out for terminally ill patients in terrible agony that it must be allowed as an option to end their suffering.
许多反对安乐死观点基于这样的前提：我们应该竭力挽救病人的生命，因为还有康复的机会。然而统计数据向我们展示了不一样的情况。1991年，荷兰一项调查显示，86%的安乐死病例最多只缩短了病人一星期的寿命。一般情况下，病人的寿命只缩短了几小时。这一数据清楚地显示了，绝症是致命的。事实上，大多数安乐死病例中，病人处于极度的痛苦中，数据显示身患绝症的病人用安乐死来结束他们几乎没有复原可能性的痛苦处境。安乐死反对者们假设的画面是病人有生还的机会，能奇迹般的恢复，而事实和他们的假设相反。因为这些数据如此有力地证明，既然安乐死可以作为绝症病人摆脱痛苦的方式，那么，备受病魔折磨的病人应该享有是否选择安乐死的权利。

2.Euthanasia saves lives.
2.安乐死挽救生命

Sound shocking? Consider this: a 2005 study of euthanasia in the Netherlands found that 0.4% of all euthanasia was done without consent from the patient. By the time this study was done, euthanasia had been legalized in the Netherlands. Now consider another study done in 1991 which was done before euthanasia was legalized which indicated that 0.8% of euthanasia done in the Netherlands was done without the patients consent. This shows that the legalization of euthanasia actually had the reverse of the expected effect and cut the unacceptable practice of no consent euthanasia in half. By these numbers, euthanasia has in fact saved lives since it now provides a protected and regulated framework with which doctors must first obtain explicit consent before conducting euthanasia. This same framework makes it more difficult and less grey for those seeking to perform euthanasia with impure or irresponsible intentions.
看到标题，小伙伴们惊呆没？不妨先看以下实例：2005年一调查显示，在荷兰施行的安乐死病例中，有0.4%的安乐死未经患者本人同意。在该调查结束前，实施安乐死在荷兰已经合法化。再看1991年的另一项调查，那时，安乐死在荷兰尚未取得立法许可。调查结果显示，在实施过程中，有0.8%的安乐死执行未经患者本人同意。对比两个调查结果，我们可以看到安乐死合法后的结果和人们预想相反；且未经患者同意便实施安乐死的情况减半。以上数据说明，安乐死确实能挽救生命，因为合法后，实施安乐死可以受到法律保护，又为实施安乐死提供规范操作流程，医生在实施安乐死前，必须得到病人明确同意。安乐死操作流程规范化，借安乐死之名行谋杀之实的便无机可乘。

1.The Hippocratic oath supports euthanasia.
1.安乐死后盾——希波克拉底医派誓言

Most people misinterpret the Hippocratic oath as being against euthanasia. The key element of the oath is that the physician must protect the wellbeing of their patient, hence the maxim "do no harm" commonly interpreted to be a summation of the oath. Most interpretations of the "harm" element are however taken to literally refer to the patient's life. It can be argued that harm in this case refers to the wellbeing of the patient, which includes his life. However in cases where it is a choice between intense suffering or death, it can be argued that the physician is doing more harm to the patient by not allowing them to die. While this argument can go either way, updated interpretations of the Hippocratic oath do include a segment that concerns taking life as well as preserving it:
很多人认为希波克拉底医派誓言与安乐死背道而驰。誓言的核心是医生必须尽力让病人康乐安宁，因此"禁止伤害"这一信条常被概括为希波克拉底医派誓言的总纲。对"伤害"一词的理解，多数人仅仅停留在字面表层含义，即对病人生命的伤害。但这里的"伤害"，指的无疑是"病人康乐安宁"这种状态，生命当然包含于其中。然而，遇到"选择继续忍受病痛的剧烈折磨"或"一死了之"这种情况，有一点可以肯定，比起让病人活着，医生不协助病人实施安乐死对其伤害更大。当然，这个问题仁者见仁，尚无定论。现代版的希波格拉底医派誓言的确包含讨论生死的文段：
"Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty." --Written in 1964 by Louis Lasagna, Academic Dean of the School of Medicine at Tufts University
"尽我一生，尊生重死，凭良心履行医职。病人康复，永作最先思虑。若已尽全力，仍致病人丧生，我也要勇于承担责任，心存敬畏，勇敢面对。" ——1964年，由Tufts大学医学院院长Louis Lasagna 撰写
From a philosophical aspect, man seems to have some pathological fear of death, so much so that he views intense suffering, until he is actually suffering himself, as preferable to death. Such fear of death tends to create a mythical status of death in our minds that we often forget that to die is also to exist as a human being. It is the finite nature of our lives brought about by the immovable and inevitable wall of death that gives every second of our time spent on this earth its most powerful purity. Death, like life exists as part of our cycle of human existence.
从哲学角度看，一个人目睹太多人承受无尽的病痛折磨后，会对死亡产生近乎病态的恐惧，所以当他自己无法摆脱病痛折磨时，情愿选择一死了之。对死亡的恐惧，让死亡成为我们心中一个谜团，使我们忘了死和生一样，也是人类生活的一部分。正因死亡不可避免，才让人类有限生命里的每分每秒活得相当纯粹。生寄死归，乃人类存在的两种固有形式。

审校：嘉珈Alison 来源：前十网