自考英语（二）阅读辅导（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.

　　安乐死：赞同还是反对

　　"我们再也不能耽误了，……我难以咽下食物……呼吸也有困难……，浑身疲乏无力，……不要再拖了。"荷兰人齐斯范温德尔临死前请求医生帮助他一死了之时说了这番话。

　　他因身患重病，说话已经不很清楚，他知道自己毫无康复的希望了，而且病情正在迅速恶化。在接受医生注射那致命的最后一针之前，范温德康最后三个月的生活被拍成了电影，去年在荷兰的电视台首次播出。此后，有20个国家先后购买了这个电视节目，每在一国放映，都会在全国内引起一场对安乐死的议论。

　　荷兰是欧洲唯一的允许安乐死的国家。尽管安乐死在技术上还不具有合法性，但如果医生按照两年前荷兰议会制定的议案的严格指导原则实施用安乐死，但如果医生按照两年前荷兰议会制定的议案的严格指导原则实施用安乐死，通常是不会受到法律的追究的。这些指导原则规定，当病人极度痛苦，没有治愈的可能，而且一再要求的情况下才能实施安乐死。另外，还必须有第二位名医生证实已经符合上述条件，并且要向警察机关报告病人的死亡。

　　能允许医生结束他人的生命吗？齐斯范温德尔的私人医生威尔弗雷德冯奥依金解释了他对这个问题的看法"哦，这种情况和我计划用机关枪杀死一大群人完全不一样。若是那样，杀人是我所能想象的最可怕的事。但我作为医生实施安乐死和用枪杀人是绝对不同的。我是关心人，我要尽量保证他们不受更多痛苦。这和那种情况完全是两码事。"

　　然而，仍然有很多人坚决反对使用安乐死。"反安乐死健康医疗"组织的主席安德鲁福格森说："在使用安乐死的大多数病例中，患者实际上需要的是其他的东西。他们可能需要在健康专家的指导下，与所爱的人或家人进行交流。"英国晚期病人收容所有着牢固的传统，一种专门护理垂危病人并满足他们特殊需要的特殊医院。国家收容所委员会主席和收容运动的发起人茜西莉桑德斯认为，使用安乐死把护理垂危病人的其他方式都排除了。她还担心允许使用安乐死会减少很多人对于照顾和关心的要求。"在今天的社会里，这样很容易使老年人、残疾人和靠他人生活的人们感到自己是社会的负担，应该从生活中消失掉。我觉得法律上任何允许缩短人们生命和作法都会使那些人变得更容易受伤害。"

　　很多人发现禁止一个人选择死亡的权利是没有道理的。尽管他们也认为生命很重要，并且应当尊重生命，但是生活的质量也不容忽视。范奥依金医生认为如果人们想死，他们应当有选择死亡的权利："那些反对使用安乐死的人们是在告诉我们要死亡的人没有这种权利。当他们病重时，我们害怕他们会死去。但是有的情况下死亡是人们的朋友。在那种情况下，为什么不使用安乐死呢？"

　　但"为什么不呢？"是一个会引起强烈的情感的问题。那部反映齐斯范温德尔死亡情景的电影既感人又发人深醒。很显然，这位医生是他们一家人的朋友；温德尔的妻子也是一心为丈夫好。然而，有些人争论说用这种特殊事例来支持安乐死是危险的。再说，不是所有的病人都会受到如此周到的个别护理和关注。

> 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