Bagaric Mirko, Amarasekara Kumar
School of Law, Deakin University, Burwood, Vic. 3125, Australia.
J Law Med. 2002 Nov;10(2):221-31.
A major reason that The Netherlands has taken a different approach to the rest of the world on such a fundamental moral issue is that the courts and legislature in that country have accorded the interests of doctors a cardinal role in the euthanasia debate. This article argues that the interests of doctors are of only incidental and peripheral relevance in relation to the moral status of euthanasia. The moral status of euthanasia has little to do with the preparedness of doctors to administer the lethal injection or their general attitude towards the practice. Euthanasia is principally about the interests of the patient and the impact that the practice may have on the community in general, not preserving the conscience or improving the working life of doctors.
荷兰在这样一个基本道德问题上采取了与世界其他国家不同的做法,一个主要原因是该国的法院和立法机构在安乐死辩论中赋予了医生的利益以核心角色。本文认为,医生的利益与安乐死的道德地位仅具有附带和次要的相关性。安乐死的道德地位与医生实施致命注射的意愿或他们对这种做法的总体态度几乎没有关系。安乐死主要关乎患者的利益以及这种做法可能对整个社会产生的影响,而不是维护医生的良知或改善他们的工作生活。