两难话题：医生协助病人自杀 对？错？

ASSISTED SUICIDE - Right or Wrong ? 卑诗省高等法院大法官Justice Lynn Smith 6月15日裁定，加拿大现有刑法中 ban on assisted suicide，禁止医生协助病人自杀的法令违宪，现有法律违反身患肌肉硬化症的 Gloria Taylor 和多位原告的基本人权，高院法官给予联邦政府一年的时间修改法律，并豁免她可以在修法完成前，要求医生协助下选择死亡。

安乐死一直是争议性极高的课题，法院判决引起议论纷纷，意料中事。
国家两大主流报章，先后发表社论，以审慎字眼，支持法官的裁决。

Globe and Mail《 环球邮报 》首先在6月15日以ASSISTED SUICIDE: Freedom from inescapable pain为题，认为大法官正确给予起诉人Gloria Taylor合法寻求医生协助死亡的权利：
The B.C. Supreme Court is correct to recognize that right and strike down Canada’s Criminal Code provision against physician-assisted suicide. Canadians with incurable diseases who are in excruciating pain should not have to suffer unnecessarily.

Toronto Star《多伦多星报》6月20日的社论，以ASSISTED SUICIDE: Parliament needs to act做标题，同样以严格的条件，支持联邦国会一年内修法，透过精心设立的监察制度，将风险降至最低，和避免流弊出现，以防RIGHT TO DIE被滥用：

Most Canadians seem to support what Justice Smith envisages, a tightly circumscribed（严紧周密的约束和限制 ）,closely monitored system(密切的监视制度) that amounts to an “almost absolute prohibition,”(近手绝对禁止) but that in exceptional cases(容许某些例外的个案) gives “grievously and irremediably ill adult persons(极严重的和不可治愈疾病的成年患者) who are competent, fully-informed, non-ambivalent (有能力作判断、充份明白情况、毫无茅盾、绝不含糊的态度)and free from coercion or duress” the option (全无胁迫、完全自由地作出选择)to seek a doctor’s help to end their lives。

至于反对medically assisted dying的意见，以联邦律署律师Joseph Arvay为代表，他得悉判决后指出：如果将协助他人自杀合法化，不但违反社会基本价值，同时也与国会自1892年来的立场背道而驰。

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition安乐死防范组织发言人 Will Johnston也认为，该判决低估因安乐死合法所产生负面效应，例如老人和残疾人士可能被虐待，风险很大。

各大报章Letters to the editor 投书社论版的国民，也有不少人担心，裁决可能致在有心人教唆下，为了不想成为家人负担长期病患的长者，会自寻短见，不应低估euthanasia“ 安乐死”非形事化，可能产生的负面效应。

持这种想法的人，还有Toronto Star《多伦多星报》专栏作家Rosie Dimano，她以A slippery, frightening slope 做标题，整版篇幅分析slippery slope这方面的流弊。Slippery slope is a course of action that is difficult to stop and can lead to serious problems and disaster：
Open that Pandora’s box of ethical imperatives — what we’ve always believed morally wrong, murder most paramount — and absolute prohibition disappears.

作者担心此例一开，情况一发不可收拾，定会滑向危险的境地，政府放宽严格禁止医生杀人的重要伦理， 绿灯一放，正如潘多拉的魔盒子一打开，邪恶源源而来，等同鼓吹谋杀的流弊，随之泛滥人间：

There are those, including doctors, who’ve advocated euthanasia for the severely mentally retarded — individuals who clearly can’t form consent. The slippery slope isn’t an exaggeration; it’s human nature.

她又担心卑诗省的判决，不成功上诉，或者最高法院同意这次裁判案例，那便大祸临头：
That’s why absolute prohibition is the standard in all but a handful of jurisdictions that Canada might now join, should this B.C. court ruling either go unchallenged or find concurrence at the Supreme Court of Canada, where the case is undoubtedly headed.

但是，另一位Globe and Mail《环球邮报》的资深评论员Andre Picard，却持相反见解：
In her ruling, Madam Justice Lynn Smith said Criminal Code provisions that prohibit assisted death violated Ms. Taylor’s constitutional right to “life, liberty and security of person.”(侵犯生存、自由和保护个人权的宪法权利 )。Just as importantly, the judge noted that a complete prohibition is not the only way to ensure that grievously ill adults can make a decision to end their lives that is “fully informed, non-ambivalent and free of coercion or duress” – namely a carefully monitored system with established practices.

他的审慎观点和上述《星报》的社论相若。
最后，纯粹以政治角度，解读这次裁决的《星报》专栏作家ChantHebert,认为加拿大最新的民调，绝大多数国民支持立法解决医生协助病人死亡的观念，尤其是魁省的市民：
According to polls, a strong majority of Canadians support the concept of legal assisted suicide. In regions such as Quebec, that support is overwhelming.

她认为总理哈珀要以跟宪法合拍和友善的法律条文，用法律处理解决这个烫手的政治山芋：
Justice Lynn Smith gave Stephen Harper’s government a year to come up with a constitutionally friendly version of the legal dispositions on the matter.

这件生死攸关的大事，决策者不应该仅仅操在联邦大法官手中，而更具民主代表性的国会议员，责任重大，既要考虑宪法权利、医学伦理、道德哲学，参考其它国家实施的利害，又要审察本国民情的政治脉博，最终作出明智的立法规管！