安樂死到底是讓誰得到了安樂

Who Is Peaceful in Euthanasia?

本文透過有關積極安樂死議題的耙梳，發現除了少數國家外，大部分的國家僅承認安寧緩和醫療的合法性，卻在面臨積極安樂死的合法化進程上卻步。其理由應該在於自殺行為蔓延禁止的滑坡理論作祟。或許在強調醫療上自我決定權作用的時代，考量到面臨死亡時個人的意志必然弱化，容易被其他因素影響的現實，不輕易認可積極安樂死的政策有其一定的道理。然而，在安寧緩和醫療的領域，關於個人接受安寧緩和醫療的意思表態早就脫離了單獨個人決定一切的境界，而進入在人際關係中決定是否接受安寧緩和醫療的層次。本文觀察荷蘭、比利時以及盧森堡的相關立法過程，發現這些國家除了重視事後的行政規制外，更重視決定積極安樂死的過程，其所要求的不是個人單獨決定接受安樂死的意見表明是否受到尊重，反而是人際關係中諸種意見交錯後最終決定的尊重。或許這是突破橫亙於安寧緩和醫療與積極安樂死間鴻溝的關鍵。

By studying the issue of active euthanasia, we can find that except for a few exceptions, most countries only admit the legality of Hospice Palliative Care Act yet step back from the legalization of active euthanasia, since the latter is believed to cause the increase in suicide due to the slippery slope effect. It could probably make sense that living in the age which emphasizes the patient autonomy, considering the fact that individual might be susceptible when facing death, we should be more conservative in the legalization of active euthanasia. However, in the field of Hospice Palliative Care, the problem is that the situation is not about a person's own decision to active euthanasia, but the social relations surrounds him choose whether or not to let the person accept active euthanasia. By studying the legislative process of active euthanasia in Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg, the thesis finds out that besides the administrative rules created to regulate the situation which active euthanasia has already been passed, these countries put more emphasis on the forming of active euthanasia decision. What they regard as important is not the respect to decision of active euthanasia made by individual alone, but the final decision resulting from various interleaved opinions inside the social relations surrounding him. Perhaps it can be the key to break the wall between Hospice Palliative Care Act and active euthanasia.