安乐死亡权研究

发布时间：2018-05-19 00:26

本文选题：安乐死 + 滑坡论证　；参考：《西南政法大学》2010年硕士论文

【摘要】： 大部分学者认为,安乐死一词源于希腊文euthanasia,是由美好和死亡两个词所组成。其原意是指舒适或无痛苦地死亡,现代意义上的安乐死至今尚无一个统一完整的定义。安乐死问题已经显现出任性和无序,立法要经历一个谨慎的过程,最终使安乐死实现有法可依。论文除引言和结语外,正文分四个部分: 第一部分,死亡与安乐死。鉴于众多讨论中安乐死界定的繁杂,文章给出安乐死应具备的要素,即安乐死的实施对象应同时具备以下四个条件:(1)在现代医学条件下身患绝症且无法救助;(2)已经濒临死亡,或说死亡迫于眼前;(3)正在忍受疼痛和痛苦;(4)属于完全民事行为能力人。文章还得出了安乐死的实施目的只有一个——解除濒死患者的难以忍受的疼痛和痛苦,确定了安乐死的实施主体只能是医生,并且实施安乐死只能根据患者本人自愿提出安乐死请求。第二部分,孕育安乐死亡权的观念和实践。考察了国内外安乐死的观念和实践,对中国国情下的安乐死问题进行了分析,得出了安乐死在中国现下凸显是基于三个缘由:(1)安乐死问题的出现是人们对生命质量的提升有了更高的要求;(2)安乐死问题的出现是因为社会老龄化的到来;(3)安乐死问题的出现是因为现代死亡的改变。通过对赞成和反对安乐死的论证,得出的结论是无论诉诸何种原则,都没有充分理由证明禁止安乐死是正当的,因此,安乐死就具有了一种权利所必备的自由的要素。第三部分,安乐死的权利基础。关于死亡权,文章认为,首先,生命权三分的判断值得商榷;其次,死亡并不完全符合人权的本源和特征,可以得出“人享有死亡的权利”是一个伪命题。关于生命权,文章认为,人享有自己的生命,生命权理应归属于个人;生命权并不高于生命利益支配权;生命权应是可以放弃的。但现有的权利论证或多或少有一些缺憾,一个新兴权利凸显出来,这个权利确实存在,即安乐死亡权。第四部分,安乐死亡权的实现。文章认为,安乐死亡权的性质应属于具体人格权。分析了安乐死亡权的设定原则和设定边界问题。设定原则包括人道主义原则和知情同意原则;设定边界讨论了濒死状态的判定和权利人自愿的评价问题。关于安乐死亡权法律关系的构成,文章认为,安乐死亡权的主体是指安乐死亡权的权利人,该主体是处于濒死状态时的自然人;安乐死亡权的客体是安乐死亡利益;安乐死亡权的内容则包含安乐维护权、死亡过程控制权和保密权。文章最后希望国家立法机关在《民法典》的制定过程中能写入安乐死亡权,明确安乐死亡权属于具体人格权的一种并对其加以保护。
[Abstract]:Most scholars believe that the etymology of euthanasia is composed of two words of good and death . The original meaning refers to a comfortable or painless death . There is no uniform and complete definition of euthanasia in modern sense .

The first part , death and euthanasia . In view of the complicated definition of euthanasia in many discussions , the article gives the following four conditions : ( 1 ) suffering from extinction in modern medical conditions and cannot help ; ( 3 ) suffering from pain and suffering ; ( 4 ) suffering pain and suffering ; ( 4 ) suffering pain and suffering ; ( 4 ) suffering pain and suffering ; ( 4 ) suffering pain and suffering ; ( 4 ) suffering pain and suffering ; ( 4 ) suffering pain and suffering ; ( 4 ) suffering pain and suffering ; and ( 4 ) determining that euthanasia is only a doctor and that euthanasia can only be made according to the patient ' s own voluntary euthanasia request .

The second part analyzes the concept and practice of euthanasia right , analyzes the euthanasia problem at home and abroad , and draws a conclusion that euthanasia is based on three reasons : ( 1 ) the appearance of euthanasia is that people have higher requirements for the improvement of life quality ; ( 2 ) euthanasia is due to the change of modern death .

The third part , the right base of euthanasia . With regard to the right to death , the article argues that the right to life is worth discussing ; secondly , death does not fully accord with the origin and characteristics of human rights , and it can be concluded that " the right to death " is a false proposition . The right to life is not higher than that of life interest ; the right to life is not higher than that of life interest ; the right to life is not higher than that of life interest ; however , the right of life is more or less , and a new right is highlighted . This right does exist , that is , the right to death .

Part IV : The realization of the right of euthanasia . The article holds that the nature of euthanasia right should belong to the specific personality right . The principle of setting up the right of euthanasia is composed of the principle of humanitarian principles and informed consent . The subject of euthanasia is the right of euthanasia . The subject of euthanasia is the benefit of euthanasia . The content of euthanasia right includes the right of euthanasia , the control of death process and the right of confidentiality . Finally , it is hoped that the national legislature can write the right of euthanasia in the process of making the civil code , and it is clear that the right to death is one of the specific personality right and is protected .
【学位授予单位】：西南政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2010
【分类号】：D920.4

【参考文献】