Sundström P
J Med Ethics. 1995 Feb;21(1):35-8. doi: 10.1136/jme.21.1.35.
The Australian bioethicist Peter Singer has presented an intriguing argument for the opinion that it is quite proper (morally) to deem the lives of certain individuals not worth living and so to kill them. The argument is based on the alleged analogy between the ordinary clinical judgement that a life with a broken leg is worse than a life with an intact leg (other things being equal), and that the broken leg therefore ought to be mended, on the one hand, and the judgement that the lives of some individuals, for example, severely disabled infants, are not worth living and therefore ought to be terminated, on the other. In the present article it is argued that Singer's argument is flawed, intellectually and/or ethically.
澳大利亚生物伦理学家彼得·辛格提出了一个引人深思的论点，即认为某些人的生命不值得活下去并因此杀死他们（从道德上讲）是完全合理的。该论点基于一种所谓的类比，一方面是普通的临床判断，即在其他条件相同的情况下，腿部骨折的生活比腿部完好的生活更糟糕，因此腿部骨折应该得到治疗；另一方面是判断某些人的生命，例如严重残疾的婴儿，不值得活下去，因此应该被终结。在本文中，有人认为辛格的论点在智力和/或伦理上存在缺陷。
