我国刑法中安乐死制度的构建

发布时间：2018-02-06 02:23

本文关键词： 安乐死刑法制度构建　出处：《国际关系学院》2017年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：安乐死虽然不是一个新问题,但是它是一个跨越多学科的问题,并且虽然对此问题的讨论和研究已经经历了很长时间,但是目前国内对此的研究多局限于对既有理论和经验的介绍以及安乐死是否应当合法化及其合法化后可能造成的后果进行分析这几个方面,缺乏对于安乐死引起的刑事责任进行具体的立法构建的研究。这造成司法实务中在面临越来越多的此类案件时处于无法可依、同案不同判的尴尬境地,我国急需对于安乐死进行具体法律制度构建,因此对我国刑法中的安乐死制度构建进行讨论具有深远意义。不同学科立场以及刑法学立场上对于安乐死内涵的界定不同,刑法学也存在将安乐死划分为积极安乐死和消极安乐死等分类方法。比较和探讨不同学科立场尤其是刑法学立场对于安乐死的内涵及认定是研究安乐死在我国刑法中规制路径的前提。通过对我国近年来所发生的“安乐死”典型案例进行理论分析,发现我国现阶段对于安乐死相关案件的判决存在无法可依,判决标准不一致的情况。在众多的相关案件中,法院在定罪阶段认定当事人故意杀人罪的同时,在量刑上对这些案件纷纷适用了减轻的法定刑,且大多适用了缓刑。以故意杀人罪的法律规定来处理此类案件过于牵强,同时由于无法律明确规定造成了安乐死可能被利用作为实施故意杀人等犯罪行为的借口。荷兰、比利时已经出台了专门的安乐死法案,同时美国也已经通过判例对消极安乐死进行了规定,台湾地区的《安宁缓和医疗条例》也对消极安乐死进行了规定。域外既有的较有代表性的安乐死制度构建思路对我国具有较强借鉴意义,包括:严格限制安乐死的实施对象和实施者、严格限制安乐死的实施目的以及严格限制安乐死的审批和监督程序。设计出一套适应我国目前国情、立法水平等各方面情况的我国刑法中的安乐死制度具有其紧迫性和必要性。首先,在刑法层面从两个方面入手:一是在《刑法》第20条和第21条对于正当防卫和紧急避险的规定后加入积极安乐死,使其与正当防卫和紧急避险并列成为一种新的免责事由;二是在《刑法》第232条故意杀人罪中加入一条出罪条款,即在人员、程序等方面均合乎法律规定的前提下实施积极安乐死结束他人生命的行为不构成故意杀人罪。其次,需要通过其他法律规范从安乐死的实施对象、实施者、实施过程、监督等方面进行具体配套制度设计。在保持现有刑法条文结构平稳性的同时,摆脱我国安乐死无法可依的尴尬境地。
[Abstract]:Euthanasia is not a new problem, but it is a multidisciplinary issue, and although the discussion and research on this issue has been going on for a long time, However, most of the domestic studies on this issue are limited to the introduction of existing theories and experiences and the analysis of whether euthanasia should be legalized and the possible consequences of its legalization. Lack of research on the specific legislative construction of the criminal liability caused by euthanasia. This has resulted in an awkward situation in the judicial practice in the face of more and more such cases. It is urgent for our country to construct the specific legal system of euthanasia, so it is of great significance to discuss the construction of euthanasia system in our criminal law. The classification of euthanasia into active euthanasia and passive euthanasia is also existed in criminal jurisprudence. Comparison and discussion on the connotation and determination of euthanasia in China from the standpoint of different disciplines especially from the standpoint of Criminal Law. Through the theoretical analysis of the typical cases of euthanasia in China in recent years, It is found that the judgment of euthanasia cases in our country at the present stage is unable to be relied upon and the judgment standard is inconsistent. In many related cases, the court found the parties guilty of intentional homicide at the same time when they were convicted. In terms of sentencing, these cases have been subject to reduced legal penalties, and most of them have been suspended. It is too far-fetched to deal with such cases with the legal provisions of intentional homicide. At the same time, the absence of a law specifically prescribing euthanasia may be used as an excuse for committing crimes such as intentional homicide. In the Netherlands, Belgium has introduced a special euthanasia act. At the same time, the United States has also passed legal precedents to regulate passive euthanasia. The "Peace and palliative Medical regulations" in Taiwan also provide for passive euthanasia. The thought of constructing a representative euthanasia system outside China has a strong significance for reference in our country. Including: strictly restricting the objects and perpetrators of euthanasia, strictly restricting the purpose of euthanasia, and strictly restricting the approval and supervision procedures for euthanasia. The euthanasia system in the criminal law of our country has its urgency and necessity. In the aspect of criminal law, there are two aspects: one is to add active euthanasia after the provisions of the 20th and 21st articles of the Criminal Law for justifiable defense and emergency avoidance, so that it becomes a new reason of exemption from liability alongside legitimate defense and emergency avoidance; Second, to add a crime clause to the crime of intentional homicide in Article 232 of the Criminal Law, that is, the act of actively euthanasia ending the life of another person on the premise that the personnel and procedure are in accordance with the law does not constitute the crime of intentional homicide. It is necessary to design specific supporting systems from the aspects of euthanasia objects, implementers, implementation process, supervision and so on through other legal norms. At the same time, while maintaining the smooth structure of the existing articles of criminal law, Get rid of our country euthanasia can not rely on the embarrassing situation.
【学位授予单位】：国际关系学院
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D924.3

【相似文献】