自考英語(yǔ)（二）閱讀輔導(dǎo)（2）

Euthanasia: For and Against

　　"We mustn't delay any longer … swallowing is difficult … and breathing, that's also difficult. Those muscles are weakening too … we mustn't delay any longer."These were the words of Dutchman Cees van Wendel de Joode asking his doctor to help him die. Affected with a serious disease, van Wendel was no longer able to speak clearly and he knew there was no hope of recovery and that his condition was rapidly deteriorating.

　　Van Wendel's last three months of life before being given a final, lethal injection by his doctor were filmed and first shown on television last year in the Netherlands. The programme has since been bought by 20 countries and each time it is shown, it starts a nationwide debate on the subject.

　　The Netherlands is the only country in Europe which permits euthanasia, although it is not technically legal there. However, doctors who carry out euthanasia under strict guidelines introduced by he Dutch Parliament two years ago are usually not prosecuted.

　　The guidelines demand that the patient is experiencing extreme suffering, that there is no chance of a cure, and that the patient has made repeated requests for euthanasia. In addition to this, a second doctor must confirm that these criteria have been met and the death must be reported to the police department.

　　Should doctors be allowed to take the lives of others? Dr.Wilfred van Oijen, Cees van Wendel's doctor, explains how he looks at the question:"Well, it's not as if I'm planning to murder a crowd of people with a machine gun. In that case, killing is the worst thing I can imagine. But that's entirely different from my work as a doctor. I care for people and I try to ensure that they don't suffer too much. That's a very different thing."

　　Many people, though, are totally against the practice of euthanasia. Dr. Andrew Ferguson, Chairman of the organisation Healthcare Opposed to Euthanasia, says that "in the vast majority of euthanasia cases, what the patient is actually asking for is something else. They may want a health professional to open up communication for them with their loved ones or family - there's nearly always another question behind the question."

　　Britain also has a strong tradition of hospices - special hospitals which care only for the dying and their special needs.

　　Cicely Saunders, President of the National Hospice Council and a founder member of the hospice movement, argues that euthanasia doesn't take into account that there are ways of caring for the dying. She is also concerned that allowing euthanasia would undermine the need for care and consideration of a wide range of people: "It's very easy in society now for the elderly, the disabled and the dependent to feel that they are burdens, and therefore that they ought to opt out. I think that anything that legally allows the shortening of life does make those people more vulnerable."

　　Many find this prohibition of an individual's right to die paternalistic. Although they agree that life is important and should be respected, they feel that the quality of life should not be ignored. Dr. Van Oijen believes that people have the fundamental right to choose for themselves if they want to die: "What those people who oppose euthanasia are telling me is that dying people haven't the right. And that when people are very ill, we are all afraid of their death. But there are situations where death is a friend. And is those cases, why not?"

　　But "why not?" is a question which might cause strong emotion. The film showing Cees van Wendel's death was both moving and sensitive. His doctor was clearly a family friend; his wife had only her husband's interests at heart. Some, however, would argue that it would be dangerous to use this particular example to support the case for euthanasia. Not all patients would receive such a high level of individual care and attention.

　　安樂(lè)死：贊同還是反對(duì)

　　"我們?cè)僖膊荒艿⒄`了，……我難以咽下食物……呼吸也有困難……，渾身疲乏無(wú)力，……不要再拖了。"荷蘭人齊斯范溫德?tīng)柵R死前請(qǐng)求醫(yī)生幫助他一死了之時(shí)說(shuō)了這番話。

　　他因身患重病，說(shuō)話已經(jīng)不很清楚，他知道自己毫無(wú)康復(fù)的希望了，而且病情正在迅速惡化。在接受醫(yī)生注射那致命的最后一針之前，范溫德康最后三個(gè)月的生活被拍成了電影，去年在荷蘭的電視臺(tái)首次播出。此后，有20個(gè)國(guó)家先后購(gòu)買(mǎi)了這個(gè)電視節(jié)目，每在一國(guó)放映，都會(huì)在全國(guó)內(nèi)引起一場(chǎng)對(duì)安樂(lè)死的議論。

　　荷蘭是歐洲唯一的允許安樂(lè)死的國(guó)家。盡管安樂(lè)死在技術(shù)上還不具有合法性，但如果醫(yī)生按照兩年前荷蘭議會(huì)制定的議案的嚴(yán)格指導(dǎo)原則實(shí)施用安樂(lè)死，但如果醫(yī)生按照兩年前荷蘭議會(huì)制定的議案的嚴(yán)格指導(dǎo)原則實(shí)施用安樂(lè)死，通常是不會(huì)受到法律的追究的。這些指導(dǎo)原則規(guī)定，當(dāng)病人極度痛苦，沒(méi)有治愈的可能，而且一再要求的情況下才能實(shí)施安樂(lè)死。另外，還必須有第二位名醫(yī)生證實(shí)已經(jīng)符合上述條件，并且要向警察機(jī)關(guān)報(bào)告病人的死亡。

　　能允許醫(yī)生結(jié)束他人的生命嗎？齊斯范溫德?tīng)柕乃饺酸t(yī)生威爾弗雷德馮奧依金解釋了他對(duì)這個(gè)問(wèn)題的看法"哦，這種情況和我計(jì)劃用機(jī)關(guān)槍殺死一大群人完全不一樣。若是那樣，殺人是我所能想象的最可怕的事。但我作為醫(yī)生實(shí)施安樂(lè)死和用槍殺人是絕對(duì)不同的。我是關(guān)心人，我要盡量保證他們不受更多痛苦。這和那種情況完全是兩碼事。"

　　然而，仍然有很多人堅(jiān)決反對(duì)使用安樂(lè)死。"反安樂(lè)死健康醫(yī)療"組織的主席安德魯福格森說(shuō)："在使用安樂(lè)死的大多數(shù)病例中，患者實(shí)際上需要的是其他的東西。他們可能需要在健康專(zhuān)家的指導(dǎo)下，與所愛(ài)的人或家人進(jìn)行交流。"英國(guó)晚期病人收容所有著牢固的傳統(tǒng)，一種專(zhuān)門(mén)護(hù)理垂危病人并滿足他們特殊需要的特殊醫(yī)院。國(guó)家收容所委員會(huì)主席和收容運(yùn)動(dòng)的發(fā)起人茜西莉桑德斯認(rèn)為，使用安樂(lè)死把護(hù)理垂危病人的其他方式都排除了。她還擔(dān)心允許使用安樂(lè)死會(huì)減少很多人對(duì)于照顧和關(guān)心的要求。"在今天的社會(huì)里，這樣很容易使老年人、殘疾人和靠他人生活的人們感到自己是社會(huì)的負(fù)擔(dān)，應(yīng)該從生活中消失掉。我覺(jué)得法律上任何允許縮短人們生命和作法都會(huì)使那些人變得更容易受傷害。"

　　很多人發(fā)現(xiàn)禁止一個(gè)人選擇死亡的權(quán)利是沒(méi)有道理的。盡管他們也認(rèn)為生命很重要，并且應(yīng)當(dāng)尊重生命，但是生活的質(zhì)量也不容忽視。范奧依金醫(yī)生認(rèn)為如果人們想死，他們應(yīng)當(dāng)有選擇死亡的權(quán)利："那些反對(duì)使用安樂(lè)死的人們是在告訴我們要死亡的人沒(méi)有這種權(quán)利。當(dāng)他們病重時(shí)，我們害怕他們會(huì)死去。但是有的情況下死亡是人們的朋友。在那種情況下，為什么不使用安樂(lè)死呢？"

　　但"為什么不呢？"是一個(gè)會(huì)引起強(qiáng)烈的情感的問(wèn)題。那部反映齊斯范溫德?tīng)査劳銮榫暗碾娪凹雀腥擞职l(fā)人深醒。很顯然，這位醫(yī)生是他們一家人的朋友；溫德?tīng)柕钠拮右彩且恍臑檎煞蚝?。然而，有些人?zhēng)論說(shuō)用這種特殊事例來(lái)支持安樂(lè)死是危險(xiǎn)的。再說(shuō)，不是所有的病人都會(huì)受到如此周到的個(gè)別護(hù)理和關(guān)注。

> Advantage Unfair

　　According to the writer Walter Ellis, author of a book called the Oxbridge Conspiracy, Britain is still dominated by the old-boy network: it isn't what you know that matters, but who you know. He claims that at Oxford and Cambridge Universities (Oxbridge for short) a few select people start on an escalator ride which, over the years, carries them to the tops of British privilege and power. His research revealed that the top professions all continue to be dominated, if not 90 per cent, then 60 or 65 per cent, by Oxbridge graduates.

　　And yet ,says Ellis, Oxbridge graduates make up only two per cent of the total number of students who graduate from Britain's universities. Other researches also seem to support his belief that Oxbridge graduates start with an unfair advantage in the employment market. In the law, a recently published report showed that out of 26 senior judges appointed to the High Court last year, all of them went to private schools and 21 of them went to Oxbridge.

　　But can this be said to amount to a conspiracy? Not according to Dr. John Rae, a former headmaster of one of Britain's leading private schools, Westminster:"I would accept that there was a bias in some key areas of British life, but that bias has now gone. Some time ago - in the 60s and before - entry to Oxford and Cambridge was not entirely on meri