第一篇：英語安樂死辯論正方

英語安樂死正方辯論

Good morning ,everyone;my name is Yang.I am the first debater on positive side.Here are my opinions.，First I will state the definaton of euthanasia,that is people who are attacked by incurable disease can’t surffer from the pains and decide to employ a humane way to end their lives without pain.2，Second, as with survival, death is a kind of human rights.When he felt happier than survival of death, he has the right to choose death, society should meet the people's needs, and give every person who is suffering incurable disease to choose the right euthanasia.So citizens have the right to choose the way of death.It is another case of freedom of choice.3，Third , for mortally ill patients, long life actually only means extend pain.For them to end their lives is a kind of happiness, It provides a way to relieve extreme pain, and this conforms to humanism.4，Fouth , this way can free up medical funds to help other people and reduce the burden of family and society.In this regard,it takes family members’ interest and supplies a lot of benefits to society.5，so according to the previous paper, we have reasons to believe that euthanasia is a proper way, not only does it respect personal dignity,but also helps with social development.And it is the performance of human civilization progress too.That’s all my ideas ,thank you

第二篇：安樂死_英語辯論

(!)Euthanasia is to kill people.Life is so important for every one.People don’t only live for themselves, but they also live for their families and the society.If they choose to leave the world, they are not responsible for themselves, their families and the society.Euthanasia is disparagement of life.Life is so precious.Patients should cherish their life.They should try their best to prevail incurable disease.Everyone should show basic respect for life.No matter what happens, we should face up to the facts, we should live on with great courage, we should believe in wonder.Nothing is impossible.so we view that Euthanasia should not be legeled(!)Euthanasia stops the medicine developing.If the patients require using euthanasia, doctors won’t try their best to save patients.The medicine will stop progress.If making euthanasia is made legal, patients who use euthanasia will be protected by law.The doctors’ right will be obvious.Doctors are given too much power, and can be wrong or unethical.Patients put their faith and trust in the opinions of their doctor.people abuse euthanasia when it is legalized, it can harm people lives.In the name of euthanasia, carry out committing suicide.Miracle cures or recoveries can occur.You can never underestimate the power of the human spirit.It demeans the value of human life.In this country, human life means something.It could open the floodgates to non-critical patient suicides and other abuses.Any loosening of the assisted-suicide laws could eventually lead to abuses of the privilege.Many religions prohibit suicide and the intentional killing of others.The most basic commandment is “You shall not kill”.Insurance companies may put undue pressure on doctors to avoid heroic measures or recommend the assisted-suicide procedure.Health insurance providers are under tremendous pressure to keep premiums down.Euthanasia can become a means of health care cost containment..Physicians and other medical care people should not be involved in directly causing death.Mercy killing is morally incorrect and should be forbidden by law.It's a homicide and murdering another human cannot be rationalized under any circumstances.Human life deserves exceptional security and protection.Advanced medical technology has made it possible to enhance human life span and quality of life.Palliative care and rehabilitation centers are better alternatives to help disabled or patients approaching death live a pain-free and better life.Family members influencing the patient's decision into euthanasia for personal gains like wealth inheritance is another issue.There is no way you can be really sure if the decision towards assisted suicide is voluntary or forced by others.Mercy killing would cause decline in medical care and cause victimization of the most vulnerable society.Would mercy killing transform itself from the “right to die” to “right to kill”? How would one assess whether a disorder of mental nature qualifies mercy killing? What if the pain threshold is below optimum and the patient perceives the circumstances to be not worthy of living? How would one know whether the wish to die is the result of unbalanced thought process or a logical decision in mentally ill patients? What if the individual chooses assisted suicide as an option and the family wouldn't agree? As to face the parting, helplessness, loss of self-control, fear of death and sorrow and so the majority of patients will experience mental suffering.In this psychological requirement under the “Euthanasia”, we can say that he is reasonable? “According to the study of suicide, suicide and treatable mental illness is intrinsically related, but not the fatal disease, a study found that in 44 patients with advanced cancer, only three thought about suicide, but are there is a serious depression.Another study shows that 85 suicides, only one person suffering from terminal illness, and 90-100% of the suicides were suffering from obvious mental illness.Undeniably, the modern medical practice slow death process, often cited the loss of personal characteristics of patients Mei, dignity, independence and autonomy.However, the expression of active euthanasia as acts of personal autonomy, it is wrong.Reasons:(a)Since active euthanasia need help, then it is not an individual matter, but the open or in the public thing.(B)under the public recognition to self-defense, capital punishment and justice in the form of war, murder, only to defend the life for everyone, not to the benefit of those killed.So, even if death is painful relief, can not be lightly taken away the right to life committed to personal.(C)even if the person's self-determination recognized the right to choose to die, that does not mean the right to ask others to kill themselves, does not include the right to authorize self to kill others.(D)autonomy, including the right of slavery has never been their own, in other words, the right to freedom does not mean the right not to freedom.So to maintain the autonomy, the need to protect life, to give others their right to life is not trampling the principle of maintaining independence.Therefore, individual autonomy and social need and public objectives and values to be consistent.結尾active euthanasia may gradually lose its spontaneity, and thus out of(i)”secret euthanasia“, meaning that without their own consent, to be a doctor euthanized.(Ii)”forced euthanasia“, meaning patients suffering from terminal illness would be coercion to lure choose euthanasia to relieve their families in the economic and psychological pressures, and save limited resources of society, the patients chose to die, do not feel life is a burden or tired of life, but he felt the burden of someone else, and that others dislike.(Iii)”Deputy euthanasia“ means to allow patients who lack capacity to self-determination by the people ”proxy decision“ to euthanasia.(Iv)”Discrimination against euthanasia,“ the crisis is the number of types of patients such as the poverty stricken or belonging to ethnic minorities, may be ”clever“ to force that ”euthanasia“ requirement, the mercy of others.Made ill patients caught in the dilemma of both the opposition between the yield, resulting in additional unnecessary fear and anxiety.The information may be heard: ”Death is terrible!Your best choice of euthanasia.“ of the slip waves, is once the ”euthanasia“ is legalized, its use will inevitably extend to other types of patients but not the dying, if not cure patients, but not incurable disease, then the risk of Alzheimer's disease or brain degradation, even those born with severe disabilities Down syndrome baby..And so on.So, if this argument, once established, will only create panic and fear that they will be forcibly sent to ”euthanasia“ in the ranks.Therefore, I agree Frasen say, ”human life, merely the possibility of error, is enough to completely reject the“ euthanasia.” “ Euthanasia is humane because it helps to hasten the death of terminally ill patient.Death, as natural as birth, is sometimes a hard process that requires assistance, and euthanasia is part of such assistance.People have the right to die.It is unnecessary to maintain life artificially beyond the point when people will never regain consciousness.Extending an incurably ill patient’s life means the same as aggravating his pain.Efforts should not be made to perpetuate what has become a meaningless existence.Euthanasia can bring mental and physical release to the patient and his family when he is terminally ill and has no prospect of recovering.Mercy killing is motivated by nothing but love and sympathy for the dying patient.Most of the terminally ill patients themselves want to die with dignity and peace instead of agony and degradation.Medical treatment for a comatose patient cause great burden economically for the hospital and the patient’s family.It is inhumane to perform euthanasia no matter how painless the process is.Anyone who voluntarily, knowingly or premeditatedly takes the life of another, even one minute prior to death, is a killer.Euthanasia is a criminal offense because it involves the killing of a person.Legalized euthanasia will invite abuse of human life because any form of murder many be conveniently dubbed “mercy killing ”by unscrupulous people.Euthanasia raises many moral issues since it implies that active measures are taken to terminate human life.Doctors and nurses should do everything they can to save dying patients instead of hastening their death by active measures.The instinct for self-preservation is the strongest instinct that human beings possess.It is untrue that any patient himself should want to die.Doctors and nurses involved in euthanasia have discredited their profession, for euthanasia is a violation of the fundamental medical principle to save human life.Mercy killing is one of the most controversial issues in the world of medicine.As the picture given above depicts, A late sick mother desperately ill son request for euthanasia.But the son was cut for this。feeling helpless because he is at a loss what to do about it.The picture really sets me thinking.It implies that people differ in their attitudes towards the mercy killing.Some people think it is right.but others dont think so.now let us listen to everyone's different opinions 安樂死是醫學界最有爭議的問題之一。正如上面所示的視頻所描繪的，一位晚期患病母親病入膏肓，請求兒子實施安樂死。但兒子且為此獲罪，感到無能為力，因為他們不知道該怎么辦。這幅畫確實發人深省。它暗示，人們在對待安樂死上看法不一致。有些人認為他是對的，但其他的不這樣認為，現在讓我們聽聽大家的不同觀點

贊成

1.If a person loses the survivability of the community has not contributed to lose the meaning of life.reduce reliance on others and a burden on society.如果一個人失去了生存能力，對社會沒有了貢獻，也就失去了生命的意義，減少對別人的倚賴和對社會的負擔。

2.the complete elimination of euthanasia patients can be painful diseases, mental stress and depression thinking exists.安樂死可以徹底消除病人的疾病痛苦，精神壓力和思想懮愁

3.a person bound to die sooner or later die;One hundred dead, the living dead are free, patients and relatives reflex happy 人總難免一死，早晚都是死；一死百了，死人活人都解脫，患者與親朋皆大歡

4.the lives of their own people, individuals have the right to end their lives, which is opposed to the human rights and personal freedom.人的生命屬于自己，個人有權結束生命，這是個人自由和獨享的人權

5.we believe that euthanasia is a form of respect for life.安樂死是尊重生命的一種方式。

6.首先，從主觀方面來講，安樂死對于病人自身，是一種減少生命痛苦的方式。人，總是趨利避害的，沒有人會說“我要去尋找痛苦，我要去遠離快樂”。當一個人處于精神和軀體的極端痛苦之下，當生命的存在已成為一場噩夢，我們難道還要 提及道德和倫理嗎？生存這個基本的“長度”都已經不能夠維持，還要來談及生命的寬度，還要去顧及倫理的重量嗎？

First,from a subjective point of view.Euthanasia for the patients themselves, is a way to reduce human suffering.People always seek advantages and avoid disadvantages, and no one would say, ”I am going to look painful, I had to go far from happy.“When a person is under extreme suffering in the body and the spirit, when the very existence of life has become a nightmare.Should we mention the moral and ethical?The basic survival of the ”length“ are not able to maintain, but also to talk about the breadth of life,we still have to take into account the weight of ethics?

7.We feel this suffering, we have come with this then you have no choice in the circumstances, we have chosen euthanasia.This is not contempt for life, nor is it moral decline.Instead, it was a time in the lives of torment and suffering to the loved ones around us to the people we love.more acceptable alternative to the road.Therefore, we believe that euthanasia is a form of respect for life.我們感受著這種痛苦，我們體會著這個中滋味，在無法選擇的情況下，我們選擇了安樂死。這不是對生命的藐視，也不是道德的淪喪。反而，這是一種

在生命面臨煎熬和磨難的時候，為我們身邊的親人，為我們愛著的人，選擇另一條更容易接受的道路。因此，我方認為，安樂死是尊重生命的一種方式.反對

1.Euthanasia is a rejection of the importance and value of human life 安樂死是拒絕了人類生活的意義和價值

2，”euthanasia" if legal form confirm down, may be some people use to depriving the life of others.In addition, to the understanding of the disease in humans is still very limited circumstances, without legal license and others end life, contrary to the right to live moral principles.“安樂死”如果以法律形式確認下來，可能會被一些人利用，用以非法剝奪他人的生命。另外，在人類對疾病的認識還十分有限的情況下，未經法律許可而結束他人生命，有悖于生存權利的道德準則。

3.Oppose euthanasia people have argued that the euthanasia is a violation of the laws of nature and death against natural behavior, weaken the human overcome the disaster of the strength and courage.反對安樂死合法化的人士則認為，安樂死是違反生老病死自然規律的反自然行為，削弱了人類戰勝災難的力量和勇氣。

4.Euthanasia is disguised violations of the right to life 安樂死是變相侵害生命權

第三篇：安樂死 英語辯論

(!)Euthanasia is to kill people.Life is so important for every one.People don’t only live for themselves, but they also live for their families and the society.If they choose to leave the world, they are not responsible for themselves, their families and the society.Euthanasia is disparagement of life.Life is so precious.Patients should cherish their life.They should try their best to prevail incurable disease.Everyone should show basic respect for life.No matter what happens, we should face up to the facts, we should live on with great courage, we should believe in wonder.Nothing is impossible.so we view that Euthanasia should not be legeled(!)Euthanasia stops the medicine developing.If the patients require using euthanasia, doctors won’t try their best to save patients.The medicine will stop progress.If making euthanasia is made legal, patients who use euthanasia will be protected by law.The doctors’ right will be obvious.Doctors are given too much power, and can be wrong or unethical.Patients put their faith and trust in the opinions of their doctor.people abuse euthanasia when it is legalized, it can harm people lives.In the name of euthanasia, carry out committing suicide.Miracle cures or recoveries can occur.You can never underestimate the power of the human spirit.It demeans the value of human life.In this country, human life means something.It could open the floodgates to non-critical patient suicides and other abuses.Any loosening of the assisted-suicide laws could eventually lead to abuses of the privilege.Many religions prohibit suicide and the intentional killing of others.The most basic commandment is “You shall not kill”.Insurance companies may put undue pressure on doctors to avoid heroic measures or recommend the assisted-suicide procedure.Health insurance providers are under tremendous pressure to keep premiums down.Euthanasia can become a means of health care cost containment..Physicians and other medical care people should not be involved in directly causing death.Mercy killing is morally incorrect and should be forbidden by law.It's a homicide and murdering another human cannot be rationalized under any circumstances.Human life deserves exceptional security and protection.Advanced medical technology has made it possible to enhance human life span and quality of life.Palliative care and rehabilitation centers are better alternatives to help disabled or patients approaching death live a pain-free and better life.Family members influencing the patient's decision into euthanasia for personal gains like wealth inheritance is another issue.There is no way you can be really sure if the decision towards assisted suicide is voluntary or forced by others.Mercy killing would cause decline in medical care and cause victimization of the most vulnerable society.Would mercy killing transform itself from the “right to die” to “right to kill”? How would one assess whether a disorder of mental nature qualifies mercy killing? What if the pain threshold is below optimum and the patient perceives the circumstances to be not worthy of living? How would one know whether the wish to die is the result of unbalanced thought process or a logical decision in mentally ill patients? What if the individual chooses assisted suicide as an option and the family wouldn't agree? As to face the parting, helplessness, loss of self-control, fear of death and sorrow and so the majority of patients will experience mental suffering.In this psychological requirement under the “Euthanasia”, we can say that he is reasonable? “According to the study of suicide, suicide and treatable mental illness is intrinsically related, but not the fatal disease, a study found that in 44 patients with advanced cancer, only three thought about suicide, but are there is a serious depression.Another study shows that 85 suicides, only one person suffering from terminal illness, and 90-100% of the suicides were suffering from obvious mental illness.Undeniably, the modern medical practice slow death process, often cited the loss of personal characteristics of patients Mei, dignity, independence and autonomy.However, the expression of active euthanasia as acts of personal autonomy, it is wrong.Reasons:(a)Since active euthanasia need help, then it is not an individual matter, but the open or in the public thing.(B)under the public recognition to self-defense, capital punishment and justice in the form of war, murder, only to defend the life for everyone, not to the benefit of those killed.So, even if death is painful relief, can not be lightly taken away the right to life committed to personal.(C)even if the person's self-determination recognized the right to choose to die, that does not mean the right to ask others to kill themselves, does not include the right to authorize self to kill others.(D)autonomy, including the right of slavery has never been their own, in other words, the right to freedom does not mean the right not to freedom.So to maintain the autonomy, the need to protect life, to give others their right to life is not trampling the principle of maintaining independence.Therefore, individual autonomy and social need and public objectives and values to be consistent.結尾active euthanasia may gradually lose its spontaneity, and thus out of(i)”secret euthanasia“, meaning that without their own consent, to be a doctor euthanized.(Ii)”forced euthanasia“, meaning patients suffering from terminal illness would be coercion to lure choose euthanasia to relieve their families in the economic and psychological pressures, and save limited resources of society, the patients chose to die, do not feel life is a burden or tired of life, but he felt the burden of someone else, and that others dislike.(Iii)”Deputy euthanasia“ means to allow patients who lack capacity to self-determination by the people ”proxy decision“ to euthanasia.(Iv)”Discrimination against euthanasia,“ the crisis is the number of types of patients such as the poverty stricken or belonging to ethnic minorities, may be ”clever“ to force that ”euthanasia“ requirement, the mercy of others.Made ill patients caught in the dilemma of both the opposition between the yield, resulting in additional unnecessary fear and anxiety.The information may be heard: ”Death is terrible!Your best choice of euthanasia.“ of the slip waves, is once the ”euthanasia“ is legalized, its use will inevitably extend to other types of patients but not the dying, if not cure patients, but not incurable disease, then the risk of Alzheimer's disease or brain degradation, even those born with severe disabilities Down syndrome baby..And so on.So, if this argument, once established, will only create panic and fear that they will be forcibly sent to ”euthanasia“ in the ranks.Therefore, I agree Frasen say, ”human life, merely the possibility of error, is enough to completely reject the“ euthanasia.” "

第四篇：安樂死 正方

。但是當我們無力再讓生命感受快樂、幸福、尊嚴時我

們應讓這生命結束, 讓這痛苦結束。安樂死是結束這種

生命與痛苦的好方法。作為一種生命結束方法, 它應有

其存在的社會基礎。

人們在心理上是否接受安樂死是安樂死存在的首 要社會基礎。有這樣一些統計數據可以說明這一問題。第二軍醫大學長海醫院對313 名不同人群的調查顯示: 93.6%的人贊成實施安樂死。其中醫務人員贊成為 98.4%, 法學界人士贊成者為90%, 一般90.1%。上海某

大醫院530 位危重病人的死亡中, 有28%的絕癥病人 是在病人或家屬主動要求停止治療而死亡的。[ 1] 這兩組

數據表明: 在觀念上大多數人贊成安樂死。在實踐上, 基

于對安樂死的理解, 人們已開始實施安樂死。人們在思 想觀念上對安樂死的贊同也為安樂死準備了心理條件。

其次, 安樂死還可避免不必要的醫藥資源的浪費, 使社會有限的醫藥資源得到更合理的利用。由于人類認

識的局限, 地球資源的貧乏, 使我們的醫藥資源處于珍

貴而有限的狀態。而人類面臨的各種致病病毒、細菌的

侵犯卻是滾滾而來, 何況我們的生命還面臨著來自自然

界的力量(如洪水、地震等)、人類自身行為的危險。面對

這些侵犯與危險, 每一個個體生命顯得如此渺小與脆 弱。理所當然, 我們應盡一切力量保護生命。但是當某一

個體生命處于死亡邊緣, 忍受著無力克服的痛苦, 現有 的醫療技術已無力挽回其生命的春天, 而這種狀態下的

生命維持又需花費極高的醫療代價, 在這種情況下, 用 一種人道的方法結束這種生命與痛苦, 是對社會醫藥資

源的節約, 可以把這些醫藥資源應用到更有希望的病人

身上。這樣的話, 生命的去與留都是非常偉大的, 有意義 的。

再者, 安樂死對病人來說不是一種傷害, 而是幫助 其擺脫痛苦的煎熬, 維護其生命尊嚴。身患絕癥的病人

承受著常人難以想象的病痛。這種病痛讓他們失去了往

日健康時的容顏、快樂、尊嚴。面對步步逼近的死亡之

神, 他們只能痛苦地等待, 眼睜睜看著這死亡之神殘酷

地一點點撕碎這生命之軀, 踐踏這生命的尊嚴。面對這

痛不欲生的生命, 生不如死的生活, 為什么不能做點事

情讓他們安樂地死去, 尊嚴地死去呢? 德國最高法院第 三刑事審判庭庭長、刑法專家克勞斯· 庫策1996 年在

對一起醫生實施的安樂死案件進行判決時曾指出: 應盡

量地使患者體面地、不受病痛折磨地死去, 不應只為了

讓病人多活那么一會兒而讓他們忍受那么大的痛 苦。[ 2 ] 據統計我國每年有100 多萬人在疾病極度痛苦的

安樂死讓人們在生

命的終點最后感受生命尊嚴——人們可以安詳地、舒服

地、無痛苦地離開這個世界。從心理感受的角度來說, 安

樂死讓人體驗到生命中的人格尊嚴。人格尊嚴作為人的

一種基本生存需求在所有的人身權中都可得到體現。從若不是為了敬

重生命, 怎么樣死與生命尊嚴、人格尊嚴又有什么關系

呢? 所以提倡安樂死決不是輕視生命。

“法定的權利不論是私人的或是國家、市鎮等公共的, 原先就稱之為自由??每一個真正的權 利就是一種自由?！?[ 7] 權利即自由, 意味著權利人有意志

自由和行動自由。但自由本身并不是目的, 而是手段、工

具, 自由的目的是獲得或滿足某種利益需求或求得某得

利益平衡。“一個完整的權利, 其實是由三種相互關聯的

具體權利復合而成, 即自由權、請求權、訴權的統一??

生命要還應包括

對生命利益的處分權, 這種處分權包括生命安全的處 分, 自愿承受生命危險, 如人體器官的捐獻與轉讓;生命

本身的處分—— 放棄生命, 如安樂死、舍己救人等。至

此, 我們為安樂死找到了權利基礎, 即安樂死是權利人

行使生命權中的處分權的表現。

問題是: 生命權中的處分權可否任意行使? 以安樂 死方式行使對生命利益的處分權是否是逃避責任或侵 犯他人或社會公共利益? 在法律領域內任何自由也好, 權利也好都有界限。特別是行使權利中的處分權時就更

應在法律允許的范圍內才合法。為什么權利人行使對自

己合法利益的處分權有一定的法律限制呢? 因為, 即使

是純粹“個人的權利, 不僅包含著本人的利益, 同時還包

含著社會利益和公共秩序的因素??因此, 當事人對自 身權利的處分, 應當受到國家干預。” [ 9] 這一認識反映在

法律上表現為: 任何權利都以義務為界限;任何權利人

既是自身利益的權利享有者, 又是他人利益的義務承擔 者。就拿生命權來說, 它是專屬于權利人的, 但該權利人 的生命中同時還負擔著他人的利益即對他人的義務, 且

綜上所述, 安樂死是生命權的重要內容, 是生命權 人行使對生命利益處分權的表現, 這是安樂死的權利基

礎和法律依據。但是生命利益的處分權不得任意行使, 不得將對生命利益的處分權作為逃避責任或侵害他人 利益和社會公共利益的手段。在法律規定的嚴格條件下

實施安樂死沒有侵犯他人和社會公共利益。

第五篇：辯論-安樂死應不應該合法化 正方

謝謝主席，大家好：

探討安樂死應不應該合法化的問題之前，讓我們先明確兩個概念。首先，什么是安樂死？安樂死分為兩種，即直接安樂死與延續性安樂死。直接安樂死是指通過藥物解除其痛苦，結束其生命。延續性安樂死是指中止維持病人生命的措施，但通過藥物緩解其痛苦直至病人自行死亡，但是會隨時征詢病人意愿，病人可以隨時選擇繼續接受治療。這兩種方式針對的都是處于極大痛苦中的瀕死病人，因此安樂死與其說是對生與死的選擇，不如說是對死亡方式的選擇。其次，什么是合法化？這里的合法化應當是一種授權性規范，即對于公民的正當權益在法律上給予認可和保護，而并非倡導。

下面我方將從情理、法理和程序三個層面論證安樂死應該合法化。

從情理上看。安樂死實質上是一種患者和家屬在特殊條件下做出的價值判斷和價值選擇。對于患者來說，安樂死是以縮短自己的壽命為代價消除或減輕死亡時的痛苦；繼續生存則是以忍受劇烈的肉體疼痛為代價延續生命的長度。所以安樂死對患者實際是一種對安樂的死去還是痛苦的活著的判斷和選擇。對于家屬來說，是否同意患者安樂死實際上是以自身情感為出發點做出的一種抉擇。如果患者和家屬在判斷和選擇上達成了統一，安樂死對于利益相關者就沒有危害性，因而是患者本人一種正當的權益。據調查，安樂死最主要群體是晚期癌癥病人。我國每年有160萬人患癌癥，近130萬人死于癌癥，癌癥死亡率已占死亡人口的1/5。臨床上，中晚期的患者往往要忍受巨大的痛苦。如肺癌患者，肺逐漸被癌細胞代替，肺就失去了肺原本的功能。這種病人常常是被活活憋死，生不如死。在這種情況下，從人道主義角度出發，法律沒有理由強制人痛苦的活著。

從法理上看。法律在其發展過程中對公民越來越多的合理訴求予以認可和保護，使其成為正當的權利。安樂死建立在包括患者和家屬在內的各利益相關方共同的價值判斷和價值選擇之上，沒有社會危害性，并且從人道主義角度看有其重要的存在意義，是一種正當合理的訴求。安樂死合法化體現的是法律對公民意愿的尊重，這也是一種社會進步的證明。

從程序上看。為了防止無意愿安樂死被濫用的可能，彼特·辛格曾提議到：建立一套以登記制度為主的嚴格程序制度，使得不想被安樂死的病人意愿能被記載，有效遏制無意愿安樂死決定權的濫用。荷蘭、澳大利亞等國據此制定出了嚴謹的程序，規定安樂死的實施必須基于患者真實的、明確的意思要求，而且要經過醫療與司法機構的嚴格認證與審查。它需要經過：1.申請程序，安樂死的申請應對患者進行醫學鑒定，只有在神智清醒的時候以書面形式直接向主治醫師提出。2.審查程序，包括專業審查與司法審查兩道程序。3.操作程序，要求專職醫護人員，近親屬代表和司法機關在場見證4.備案程序。這些程序為安樂死合法化的操作性提供了有力保障。

安樂死在情理和法理上有其正當性，在實施過程中又有一定的程序能夠予以保障。我們沒有理由無視在絕癥中苦苦煎熬的病患對選擇死亡方式的權利的訴求，而將安樂死拒絕在合法化的門檻之外。

綜上所述我方堅持認為安樂死應該合法化。