本文選題：安樂(lè)死 + 憲法��； 參考：《安徽大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：安樂(lè)死從一出現(xiàn),就引發(fā)了各個(gè)學(xué)界的討論,它涉及了道德、倫理、醫(yī)學(xué)、法律等諸多學(xué)科,也正是因?yàn)樗膹?fù)雜性,才會(huì)至今爭(zhēng)議不斷。目前安樂(lè)死在我國(guó)的定性依然是不合法的,對(duì)此學(xué)界一直存在爭(zhēng)議,從社會(huì)上頻發(fā)的安樂(lè)死事件來(lái)看,這種定性引發(fā)了很多倫理道德上的不好后果,也引起相當(dāng)一部分民眾的反對(duì)。因此對(duì)安樂(lè)死的定性在一定程度上已經(jīng)滯后于社會(huì)的發(fā)展,無(wú)法滿足社會(huì)大眾的需求,目前已經(jīng)有些國(guó)家將安樂(lè)死納入合法的范疇,安樂(lè)死的合法化也成了未來(lái)的一種趨勢(shì)。想要實(shí)現(xiàn)安樂(lè)死在我國(guó)的合法化,可以先從憲法角度來(lái)探究安樂(lè)死合法化。對(duì)安樂(lè)死的爭(zhēng)議,首先就體現(xiàn)在概念上,通過(guò)歸納學(xué)者的不同觀點(diǎn),總結(jié)出成立安樂(lè)死的必要屬性,具體界定安樂(lè)死的對(duì)象范圍,將與安樂(lè)死容易混淆的非自愿安樂(lè)死以及對(duì)象是植物人、重度精神病患者、重度殘疾人等的廣義安樂(lè)死排除在外,并將安樂(lè)死與最典型的尊嚴(yán)死相區(qū)別,以期從多方面明確安樂(lè)死的具體內(nèi)涵。其次安樂(lè)死的爭(zhēng)議體現(xiàn)在合法性上,目前已有少數(shù)國(guó)家已將安樂(lè)死合法化或部分地區(qū)合法化,他們的立法模式各不相同,可供我國(guó)安樂(lè)死立法參考借鑒。反觀我國(guó)安樂(lè)死的研究現(xiàn)狀,實(shí)踐中安樂(lè)死合法化的需求愈加強(qiáng)烈,但是理論上卻有合憲性問(wèn)題亟待解決:個(gè)人是否享有死亡的權(quán)利,安樂(lè)死是否與國(guó)家的保護(hù)義務(wù)相違背,安樂(lè)死是否保護(hù)生命權(quán)和人格尊嚴(yán)。之所以有這些與憲法相關(guān)的問(wèn)題,最根本的是對(duì)生命權(quán)的不同理解:不同的學(xué)者對(duì)生命權(quán)的解讀不同,有的學(xué)者認(rèn)為生命權(quán)是絕對(duì)的,是受國(guó)家絕對(duì)保護(hù)的,任何人包括自己都不能決定生死問(wèn)題,因此個(gè)人沒(méi)有選擇死亡的權(quán)利,安樂(lè)死違背了國(guó)家的保護(hù)義務(wù),安樂(lè)死與生命權(quán)相沖突,是對(duì)生命權(quán)的侵犯,抹殺了人格尊嚴(yán)。但生命權(quán)是相對(duì)的,國(guó)家對(duì)生命權(quán)的保護(hù)是要求國(guó)家對(duì)除本人以外的其他第三者的侵害進(jìn)行保護(hù),個(gè)人享有選擇死亡的權(quán)利是有憲法基礎(chǔ)的,安樂(lè)死并沒(méi)有與生命權(quán)相沖突。對(duì)此,通過(guò)對(duì)生命權(quán)的內(nèi)涵、性質(zhì)、國(guó)家的保護(hù)義務(wù)等方面進(jìn)行論證,以求給安樂(lè)死合法化奠定憲法基礎(chǔ)。有了實(shí)踐的需要和理論上的支撐,在借鑒國(guó)外立法經(jīng)驗(yàn)的基礎(chǔ)上,結(jié)合我國(guó)的實(shí)際情況,對(duì)我國(guó)安樂(lè)死進(jìn)行了立法設(shè)計(jì),具體明確安樂(lè)死的適用條件、實(shí)施方式與主體、實(shí)施安樂(lè)死的程序,同時(shí)嚴(yán)格限制安樂(lè)死的濫用,明確幾種不屬于安樂(lè)死的行為以及應(yīng)負(fù)的法律責(zé)任。當(dāng)然任何立法都要遵循憲法的原則,在安樂(lè)死立法的過(guò)程必須要遵循法律保留原則、恪守生命權(quán)原則、正當(dāng)程序原則。
[Abstract]:Euthanasia has been discussed in various academic circles since its emergence. It involves many disciplines such as morality, ethics, medicine, law and so on. It is precisely because of its complexity that it is still controversial. At present, the characterization of euthanasia in our country is still illegal, and there has always been controversy in academic circles. Judging from the frequent incidents of euthanasia in society, this kind of characterization has caused a lot of bad ethical and moral consequences. It also aroused opposition from a considerable number of people. Therefore, the characterization of euthanasia has lagged behind the development of society to a certain extent, and can not meet the needs of the public. At present, some countries have brought euthanasia into the legal category, and the legalization of euthanasia has become a trend in the future. To realize the legalization of euthanasia in our country, we can explore the legalization of euthanasia from the angle of constitution. The controversy of euthanasia is embodied in the concept, through the induction of different viewpoints of scholars, summed up the necessary attributes of the establishment of euthanasia, specifically defined the scope of the object of euthanasia, Exclusion of involuntary euthanasia, which is easily confused with euthanasia, and generalized euthanasia for vegetative, severely mentally ill, severely disabled persons, and the distinction between euthanasia and the most typical form of dignified death, In order to clarify the specific connotation of euthanasia from many aspects. Secondly, the controversy of euthanasia is embodied in the legality. At present, a few countries have legalized euthanasia or some regions, their legislative models are different, which can be used as reference for our country's euthanasia legislation. Looking back at the present situation of euthanasia in China, the demand for legalization of euthanasia in practice is more and more intense, but in theory there are some constitutional problems to be solved: whether individuals enjoy the right to die, whether euthanasia violates the duty of protection of the state, and whether euthanasia is in violation of the duty of protection of the state. Whether euthanasia protects the right to life and human dignity. The fundamental reason for these constitution-related problems lies in the different interpretations of the right to life: different scholars interpret the right to life differently. Some scholars believe that the right to life is absolute and is absolutely protected by the state. No one, including himself, can decide the issue of life and death, so individuals do not have the right to choose death. Euthanasia violates the duty of protection of the state. Euthanasia conflicts with the right to life, which violates the right to life and nullifies human dignity. However, the right to life is relative. The protection of the right to life requires the state to protect the infringement of other third parties except himself. The right of individual to choose death is based on the constitution, and euthanasia does not conflict with the right to life. In order to lay a constitutional foundation for the legalization of euthanasia, the connotation and nature of the right to life and the duty of protection of the state are discussed in order to establish a constitutional foundation for the legalization of euthanasia. With the need of practice and theoretical support, on the basis of drawing lessons from foreign legislative experience and combining the actual situation of our country, the legislative design of euthanasia in our country has been carried out, and the applicable conditions, methods and subjects of euthanasia have been specified. The procedure of euthanasia is carried out, and the abuse of euthanasia is strictly restricted. Of course, any legislation must follow the principle of constitution. In the process of euthanasia legislation, we must abide by the principle of legal reservation, the principle of right to life and the principle of due process.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：安徽大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：D921

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 袁立;;作為基本權(quán)的勞動(dòng)權(quán)國(guó)家保護(hù)義務(wù)[J];太平洋學(xué)報(bào);2011年07期

2 程舒;黃何文;;銀行對(duì)客戶的保護(hù)義務(wù)研究——以安徽一儲(chǔ)戶存款遭竊起訴銀行勝訴為研究視角[J];法制與社會(huì);2012年10期

3 葉i吰，

本文編號(hào)：1782572