反对安乐死的国家
世界上第一个将积极安乐死合法化的国家是荷兰，比利时则紧随其后 瑞士允许消极安乐死，英国上院正在审理一项允许自愿安乐死的法案。
在日本，有条件的安乐死于1995年得到最高法院许可。
哥伦比亚则于1997年立法确认安乐死是临终病人的一项权利。
法国议会于2005年通过一项法令，给予没有希望治愈或处于垂死阶段的病人选择死亡的权利。
澳大利亚北部地区曾短期承认安乐死合法。
有关法令于1996年7月生效，但于1997年3月被澳大利亚联邦议会废止。
其他国家都是反对的
辩论赛里支持安乐死的提出什么问题能让反对安乐死的哑口无言
以任何目的去剥夺人的生命，都是一种杀戮行为，因为生命的意义在于活下去，无论如何安乐 ，都违背了生命的意义所在，安乐死不应该合法化，从实施安乐死的具体操作来看，安乐死实施不具有可行性，安乐死其自身具有非常大的不合理性。
而且，于社会而言，安乐死不是帮助病患解除痛苦的唯一途径，相比于安乐死，临终关怀或许才是给生命以尊严更好的途径。
求反对安乐死的理由
反对也涉及社会、伦理和法律问题现代社会里，安乐死一般指用医疗干预手段引致那些在当前医学条件没有希望救治的、正在遭受无法 摆脱的难以忍受的痛苦的临终病人的死亡。
对安乐死的关注以及对与安乐死联系在一起的有关生命本质、生命价值、生命质量、人的自主和尊严 的讨论无疑是人类文明进步的表现。
虽然有个别国家已进行关于安乐死的立法，但绝大多数国家还在争论和思考之中。
因为这实在是“性命攸关”的大事。
对于安乐死的看法
支持··人来到这世界不容易，当然，每个人都有权利开始和结束每个人的生命，安乐死只是结束生命的一种办法，属于个人拥有的权利，所以我不反对
反对安乐死的理由，详细有条理
对安乐死的看法【关键词】：安乐死、安乐死合法化【内容摘要】：当一个患者罹临死亡、不堪其痛而请求医生尽快结束他的生命时,如果医生注射药剂促使他提前死亡,医生很可能不被追究杀人责任。
但是,一个儿子在身患绝症、痛苦不堪的母亲的哀求下,给其服用老鼠药让她早日西归,却被认定为杀人罪。
两者为何“因”同而“果”不同
难道患者可以放弃自己的生命,而母亲不可以放弃自己的生命
难道医生可以依嘱结束患者的生命,而儿子不可以遵命结束母亲的生命
目前，对于安乐死的争议已经越来越多的引起学者及普通民众的注意。
一、安乐死的定义源于希腊的“安乐死”一词是快乐的尊严的死亡，然而，安乐死在不断的发展过程中被赋予了许多不同意义，出现了相关概念，如“尊严死”“协助死亡”“受嘱咐杀人”“帮助性自杀”等，被赋予现代意义的相关概念都有其各自的立足点和侧重点。
在安乐死的争论中，由于存在不同择重点的相关概念，如“受嘱咐杀人”和“帮助性自杀”其实谈的都是一个意思，医生在本人自愿安乐死的前提下，为其实施安乐术。
由于择重点不同，一个成了“他杀”一个成了“自杀”。
正是因为法律没有给安乐死一个权威而明确的界定，才使人们对安乐死实施带来疑惑和一定的恐惧，也造成了现实中司法的混乱。
我国对安乐死的定义是：患不治之症的病人在垂危状态下，由于精神和躯体的极端痛苦，在病人和其亲友的要求下，经医生认可，用人道方法使病人在无痛苦状态中结束生
为什麼国家反对安乐死
属于反对安乐死的理由A.医学的目的是治病救人，医生救死扶伤是职责，安乐死违背了医学目的与医生职责B.安乐死阻碍医学科学的进步C.实施安乐死会导致医务人员的道德滑坡
关于反对安乐死的英语资料
我天外教课期末考试辩论好是这个，这的辩论素材Euthanasia is to kill people. Life is so important for every one. People don’t only live for themselves, but they also live for their families and the society. If they choose to leave the world, they are not responsible for themselves, their families and the society. Euthanasia is disparagement of life. Life is so precious. Patients should cherish their life. They should try their best to prevail incurable disease. Everyone should show basic respect for life. No matter what happens, we should face up to the facts, we should live on with great courage, we should believe in wonder. Nothing is impossible. Euthanasia stops the medicine developing. If the patients require using euthanasia, doctors won’t try their best to save patients. The medicine will stop progress. If making euthanasia is made legal, patients who use euthanasia will be protected by law. The doctors’ right will be obvious. Doctors are given too much power, and can be wrong or unethical. Patients put their faith and trust in the opinions of their doctor.people abuse euthanasia when it is legalized, it can harm people lives. In the name of euthanasia, carry out committing suicide. Miracle cures or recoveries can occur. You can never underestimate the power of the human spirit.It demeans the value of human life. In this country, human life means something.It could open the floodgates to non-critical patient suicides and other abuses. Any loosening of the assisted-suicide laws could eventually lead to abuses of the privilege.Many religions prohibit suicide and the intentional killing of others. The most basic commandment is You shall not kill.Insurance companies may put undue pressure on doctors to avoid heroic measures or recommend the assisted-suicide procedure. Health insurance providers are under tremendous pressure to keep premiums down.Euthanasia can become a means of health care cost containment..Physicians and other medical care people should not be involved in directly causing death.Mercy killing is morally incorrect and should be forbidden by law.It's a homicide and murdering another human cannot be rationalized under any circumstances.Human life deserves exceptional security and protection. Advanced medical technology has made it possible to enhance human life span and quality of life. Palliative care and rehabilitation centers are better alternatives to help disabled or patients approaching death live a pain-free and better life.Family members influencing the patient's decision into euthanasia for personal gains like wealth inheritance is another issue. There is no way you can be really sure if the decision towards assisted suicide is voluntary or forced by others.Mercy killing would cause decline in medical care and cause victimization of the most vulnerable society. Would mercy killing transform itself from the right to die to right to kill?How would one assess whether a disorder of mental nature qualifies mercy killing? What if the pain threshold is below optimum and the patient perceives the circumstances to be not worthy of living? How would one know whether the wish to die is the result of unbalanced thought process or a logical decision in mentally ill patients? What if the individual chooses assisted suicide as an option and the family wouldn't agree?As to face the parting, helplessness, loss of self-control, fear of death and sorrow and so the majority of patients will experience mental suffering. In this psychological requirement under the Euthanasia, we can say that he is reasonable? According to the study of suicide, suicide and treatable mental illness is intrinsically related, but not the fatal disease, a study found that in 44 patients with advanced cancer, only three thought about suicide, but are there is a serious depression. Another study shows that 85 suicides, only one person suffering from terminal illness, and 90-100% of the suicides were suffering from obvious mental illness. Undeniably, the modern medical practice slow death process, often cited the loss of personal characteristics of patients Mei, dignity, independence and autonomy. However, the expression of active euthanasia as acts of personal autonomy, it is wrong. Reasons: (a) Since active euthanasia need help, then it is not an individual matter, but the open or in the public thing. (B) under the public recognition to self-defense, capital punishment and justice in the form of war, murder, only to defend the life for everyone, not to the benefit of those killed. So, even if death is painful relief, can not be lightly taken away the right to life committed to personal. (C) even if the person's self-determination recognized the right to choose to die, that does not mean the right to ask others to kill themselves, does not include the right to authorize self to kill others. (D) autonomy, including the right of slavery has never been their own, in other words, the right to freedom does not mean the right not to freedom. So to maintain the autonomy, the need to protect life, to give others their right to life is not trampling the principle of maintaining independence. Therefore, individual autonomy and social need and public objectives and values to be consistent. active euthanasia may gradually lose its spontaneity, and thus out of (i) secret euthanasia, meaning that without their own consent, to be a doctor euthanized. (Ii) forced euthanasia, meaning patients suffering from terminal illness would be coercion to lure choose euthanasia to relieve their families in the economic and psychological pressures, and save limited resources of society, the patients chose to die, do not feel life is a burden or tired of life, but he felt the burden of someone else, and that others dislike. (Iii) Deputy euthanasia means to allow patients who lack capacity to self-determination by the people proxy decision to euthanasia. (Iv) Discrimination against euthanasia, the crisis is the number of types of patients such as the poverty stricken or belonging to ethnic minorities, may be clever to force that euthanasia requirement, the mercy of others. Made ill patients caught in the dilemma of both the opposition between the yield, resulting in additional unnecessary fear and anxiety. The information may be heard: Death is terrible! Your best choice of euthanasia. of the slip waves, is once the euthanasia is legalized, its use will inevitably extend to other types of patients but not the dying, if not cure patients, but not incurable disease, then the risk of Alzheimer's disease or brain degradation, even those born with severe disabilities Down syndrome baby. . And so on. So, if this argument, once established, will only create panic and fear that they will be forcibly sent to euthanasia in the ranks. Therefore, I agree Frasen say, human life, merely the possibility of error, is enough to completely reject the euthanasia.
