贊成安樂死不等於支持安樂死法制化，前者是趨生避死邏輯的顛覆，後者則是捍衛這項人類欲望法則的舉動，兩者不僅不是必然的推論，反而是明顯互斥的價值表述。趨生避死與趨死避生是共存於日常生活中互斥的價值選項，也是人類生活的常態事實，各自在不同情境中作為生死抉擇的支配性策略，立法的舉動不僅將侵吞人類價值抉擇的可能性。在技術層面上，也是多餘且不正當的。對自願性安樂死的要求而言，立法無法防止濫用，也侵奪每個人僅剩的、無需贊成或反對的、絕對私有的、自願死亡的自然權利，每個身體的單獨承載與必然死亡即清楚地展現其無可侵犯的本質。對非自願性安樂死而言，在無法辨識患者意志的情況下，任何法律性的規定或判決都會冒侵奪生存權的重大風險，立法反將法律變成多數人的謀殺證據。在患者身處巨大病痛及克服死亡恐懼的情境中，輕率地做出安樂死要求的可能性微乎其微，其趨死避生的決定的真確性是不容置疑的。要避免濫用或追究枉死與安樂死是否立法無關，只須將這類情況當作醫師業務過失或謀殺的刑事案件來處理，無須透過制訂一部安樂死法律來進行調查，基於這項考慮的立法即已與安樂死無關。

This essay ventures to demonstrate an imperative disagreement between the defense of euthanasia and the uphold of its legalization from the premise of the autonomy of human body. Euthanasia is the last chance and the last right of dying patients to demonstrate and fulfill their actual will to ask doctors for helping them to die fearlessly and with dignity. No matter how good or bad intention, any legalization will destroy the right-to-die of every possible ill-seriously patient thoroughly. Ironically, the legalization of euthanasia will actually refute the original idea of euthanasia to respect the decision to pursuit a good death. The risk of abuse will be lower and easier to prevent than the legalization. Learning to keep silent and trust them rather than to legalize and suspect when dying patients ask for authanasia will be better policy of any modern democratic government which advocate and protect the unique value of human rights.

安樂死;自殺;死亡權

Euthanasia; Suicide; Right-to-die