读外刊学雅思(10)- Say no to euthanasia
2015-08-21 10:46阅读：
安乐死（euthanasia）到底该不该立法支持？近年来人们为此争论不休，这篇是迄今为止唐老雅看到的论述最为全面的一篇，涉及安乐死带来的人权、宗教、生命伦理、法律、政治等多方面话题。但作者的态度非常鲜明：尊重生命，反对安乐死！
Cool logic of mercy needed on hot button of
euthanasia
(From News Weekly, June 6, 2015)
by Ray Campbell
唐老雅 选注
Euthanasia（安乐死） is sometimes
referred to as a “hot button”
issue（热议的问题）. This refers to the
fact that it is an issue that arouses strong feelings and intense
argument.
Unfortunately these two often do not go well together –
intense feelings can lead to a
clouding（模糊，不清）
of the argument. When one feels strongly about something one
tends to make statements as if their truth were
self-evident（不言自明的）. While
acknowledging the strong feelings, it is good to step back and look
at what stands behind the statements.
Recently the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference published
a pamphlet（小册子）, “Real care,
love and compassion: the alternative to euthanasia”. Part of the
aim of the pamphlet was to look at what stands behind some the
statements made in favour of euthanasia. The pamphlet refers to six
myths. In what follows I will comment on the myths identified and
add one more.
One of the most popular arguments put forward in favour of
euthanasia is the “autonomy argument”; that is, that everyone
should be free to decide when to end their own life. (In the
pamphlet it is Myth 3: “Euthanasia is an issue of personal liberty
and personal choice”.)
But, since when did we let people do things simply because
“it was their choice”? We never allow this kind of freedom to our
children, and for good reason. We want our children to learn to use
their freedom to make good choices, choices that are directed
towards their good and the good of others.
Even as adults, we find our choices are
curtailed（削减）in various ways
for our own good and the good of others (for example, wearing seat
belts in cars). Suicide is generally regarded as tragic, and we
actually put up physical
barriers（障碍物） in some places
to discourage people from committing suicide.
Freedom of choice (autonomy) is about freedom for doing
good, not freedom to do whatever one
likes.（所谓选择的自由，即自主权，指的是做好事的自由，而不是为所欲为的自由。）
Below the surface of the autonomy argument is the concept
that there is such a thing as “a life not worth living”.
Pro-euthanasia advocates（支持者，倡导者）
are telling us that some people can know that a human life is
“not worth living”? (This is the kind of sentiment expressed by
many people who try to commit suicide. Fortunately they often come
to see that they were mistaken.)
What are the criteria（标准）
for arriving at such a conclusion? If there is such a state,
there is no reason to restrict it to those who are able to express
that judgement about their own lives. Others should be able to make
a similar judgement about those unable to express such a judgement,
as happens in places like Belgium where young children can be
euthanised. The “autonomy” argument is really
camouflage（掩饰；幌子）
for this
dubious（值得怀疑的）
value
judgement.［“自主”论事实上掩盖了这个不靠谱的（关于生命意义的）价值判断。］
How do you judge the value of a person’s life, even our own?
We often do not realise the impact our lives have on others, even
when we are dependent upon them.
The autonomy argument is also naïve regarding how free people
might be when they request to be put to death. The vulnerable
are very open to being made to feel that this is what they should
do（病人很可能是不情愿地感觉，死是他们应该做的事情）. In a
recent letter published in the Times, leading members of the
British Medical Association said that one of the reasons most
doctors were opposed to legalisation of assisted suicide was that
“doctors are aware of the potential for abuse of vulnerable
patients and the
illusory（虚幻的）
nature of the ‘safeguards’ in any proposed
legislation”（多数医生反对助死立法的原因之一是“他们意识到，助死有可能变成是对临死病人的虐待，同时还意识到任何立法中的所谓“保障”本质都是虚幻的）.
The first myth referred to in the pamphlet is: Euthanasia can
be legislated for safely. The good doctors are aware of how false
this is. The House of Lords arrived at a similar conclusion in the
1990s, as did an inquiry in the State of New York. Nothing has
changed since these and other bodies delivered their
judgements.
This brings me to another myth which is not mentioned in the
pamphlet: that opposition to euthanasia is based only on religious
arguments.
But there is actually nothing wrong with opposing euthanasia
on religious grounds. Why should such grounds not count? Yet, the
truth is that many oppose the legalisation of euthanasia on grounds
that are not solely religious. Neither the House of Lords nor the
State of New York committee are
bastions（阵地） of
Catholicism.
People who are entrusted with the care of all citizens, who
have no personal objections to euthanasia in itself, have arrived
at the conclusion that one cannot safely legislate to allow some
people to kill others, even if they request it, nor to allow people
to assist them to kill themselves.
In support of the myth that it can be safely legislated we
often find what is given as myth 4 in the pamphlet: It has worked
well in other places, like the Netherlands and Belgium. The
evidence, though, indicates just the opposite. In the Netherlands
and Belgium the range of people now “eligible”
for（有资格做．．．．．．） euthanasia has
widened considerably and in both jurisdictions many cases go
unreported.
Some people make the request for euthanasia under the
misapprehension（错误想法） that nothing more
can be done to ease their situation. (Myth 6: Euthanasia is
necessary to relieve pain.)
Palliative（缓和性的） care
workers have found that once they have resolved the problem leading
to the making of the request for euthanasia, the request is
withdrawn. This happens because someone cared. Many people who
request euthanasia do so out of fear. Is killing such people really
a dignified death? (Myth 2, Dying with Dignity.)
Much is made of polls showing support for euthanasia. (Myth
5: Euthanasia should be legalised because opinion polls support
it.) But these polls are
notoriously（臭名昭著地） easy to
manipulate（操纵） by the way
one poses the question.
But more than that, perhaps we should be asking why so many
people are in favour of
deliberately（故意地） ending
someone’s life, even their own. Is it that people cannot find
meaning in suffering? Or have they lost a sense of the meaning of
life altogether?
Vocabulary
Euthanasia 安乐死
A hot-button issue 热门话题
Self-evident 不言自明的
Pamphlet 小册子
Curtail 削减
Barrier 障碍物
Advocate 支持者，倡导者
Criteria 标准
Camouflage 烟幕弹，幌子
Dubious 值得怀疑的
Illusory 虚幻的，不真实的
Be eligible for…
有资格做……
Notoriously 臭名昭著的
Manipulate 操纵
Deliberately 故意地
本文对雅思写作的启示
本文是典型的驳斥类文章，即逐条驳斥其他观点或论据，并提出自己的观点。这种作文在雅思考试中屡见不鲜。比如：
1．Some people think the best way to
improve road safety is to increase the minimum legal age for
driving cars and motorcycles. To what extent do you agree or
disagree?（2015年2月12日）
2．Many schools encourage students
to evaluate and criticize their teachers in order to improve the
quality of education while others say this will lead to loss of
respect for teachers. Discuss both views and
give your own
opinion.（2015年5月16日）
在以上两题中，都是命题者给出一个观点，有时候还会给出一些论据，然后让考生进行论述。多数情况下，命题者都是希望考生提出反对的观点并进行论证。因此，学会抓原题观点中的漏洞，并展开论述，这是各位志在高分的烤鸭之必备能力。
看这篇文章如何驳斥错误观点的，诸位请仔细揣摩研习。
1．原观点：应该支持安乐死，因为人有选择的自由。
驳斥：人的自由是用来选择做好事的自由，而不是为所欲为的自由。（这个驳斥够劲道吧？）
原文：Freedom of choice (autonomy) is about freedom
for doing good, not freedom to do whatever one likes.
2．原观点：应该支持安乐死，因为临死之人已经感觉不到生命的价值。
驳斥：什么是生命的价值？有什么标准来评判生命的价值？
原文：What are the criteria for arriving at such a
conclusion that a human life is not worth living?
3．原观点：应该支持安乐死，因为可以通过立法让安乐死变得安全。
驳斥：很多医生都知道，实施安乐死有很多潜在的问题，所谓立法安全只是虚幻。（这是通过引用权威数据来立论）
原文：In a recent letter published in the
Times, … one of the reasons most doctors were
opposed to legalisation of assisted suicide was that “doctors are
aware of the potential for abuse of vulnerable patients and the
illusory nature of the ‘safeguards’ in any proposed
legislation”.
4．原观点：应该支持安乐死，因为安乐死可以减轻病人的痛苦。
驳斥：其实，这是个误解，很多病人痛苦减轻后就不再提出安乐死了，他们提出安乐死是出于恐惧。
原文：Palliative（缓和性的）
care workers have found that once they have resolved the
problem leading to the making of the request for euthanasia, the
request is withdrawn. …Many people who request euthanasia do so out
of fear.
5．原观点：应该支持安乐死，因为安乐死已经获得民意支持。
驳斥：民意是什么东东？不就是认为操纵的吗？（这里可能是篇幅限制，也可能是作者认为不值一辩，因此没有花更多笔墨论证）
原文：These polls are notoriously easy to
manipulate by the way one poses the question.
——————加入“读外刊学雅思”的四大理由——————
l
提升雅思词汇：阅读外刊，记雅思词汇，准确，有效
l
熟悉雅思阅读：外刊题材难度与雅思阅读相当
l
积累雅思写作素材：外刊的语言表达和论证素材，一般模板不可比拟
l
名家选注：由知名雅思培训专家亲自选材注释
加“读外刊学雅思”（公众号：ieltswriting4u），读真正的英文，学真正的雅思！
