Lindsay Ronald A
Center for Inquiry, P.O. Box 741, Amherst, NY 14226-0741, USA.
Am J Bioeth. 2009 Mar;9(3):19-27. doi: 10.1080/15265160802654137.
Prior to passage of the Oregon Death with Dignity Act, opponents of assistance in dying argued that legalization would have serious harmful consequences. Specifically, they argued that the quality and availability of palliative care would decline, that the harms of legalization would affect certain vulnerable groups disproportionately, that legal assisted dying could not be confined to the competent terminally ill who voluntarily request assistance, and that the practice would result in frequent abuses. Data from Oregon's decade-long experience decisively refute the first three predictions. As to abuses, the record is not quite as clear, but if an appropriate framework for analysis is utilized, the most reasonable conclusion is that the risks of abuse do not outweigh the benefits of legalization. To the extent projected harmful consequences are relevant to the debate over legalization, Oregon's experience argues in favor of legalization of assistance in dying.
在俄勒冈州《尊严死亡法案》通过之前，安乐死协助的反对者认为合法化会带来严重的有害后果。具体而言，他们认为姑息治疗的质量和可及性会下降，合法化的危害对某些弱势群体的影响会 disproportionately（此处原文有误，可能是“disproportionately”，意为不成比例地）更大，合法的安乐死协助不能局限于有行为能力的绝症患者自愿请求协助的情况，并且这种做法会导致频繁的滥用。俄勒冈州长达十年的经验数据果断地驳斥了前三个预测。至于滥用问题，记录不太明确，但如果采用适当的分析框架，最合理的结论是滥用风险并不超过合法化的益处。就预计的有害后果与合法化辩论的相关性而言，俄勒冈州的经验支持安乐死协助合法化。
