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

【摘要】：安樂死從一出現(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,才會至今爭議不斷。目前安樂死在我國的定性依然是不合法的,對此學(xué)界一直存在爭議,從社會上頻發(fā)的安樂死事件來看,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。因此對安樂死的定性在一定程度上已經(jīng)滯后于社會的發(fā)展,無法滿足社會大眾的需求,目前已經(jīng)有些國家將安樂死納入合法的范疇,安樂死的合法化也成了未來的一種趨勢。想要實(shí)現(xiàn)安樂死在我國的合法化,可以先從憲法角度來探究安樂死合法化。對安樂死的爭議,首先就體現(xiàn)在概念上,通過歸納學(xué)者的不同觀點(diǎn),總結(jié)出成立安樂死的必要屬性,具體界定安樂死的對象范圍,將與安樂死容易混淆的非自愿安樂死以及對象是植物人、重度精神病患者、重度殘疾人等的廣義安樂死排除在外,并將安樂死與最典型的尊嚴(yán)死相區(qū)別,以期從多方面明確安樂死的具體內(nèi)涵。其次安樂死的爭議體現(xiàn)在合法性上,目前已有少數(shù)國家已將安樂死合法化或部分地區(qū)合法化,他們的立法模式各不相同,可供我國安樂死立法參考借鑒。反觀我國安樂死的研究現(xiàn)狀,實(shí)踐中安樂死合法化的需求愈加強(qiáng)烈,但是理論上卻有合憲性問題亟待解決:個(gè)人是否享有死亡的權(quán)利,安樂死是否與國家的保護(hù)義務(wù)相違背,安樂死是否保護(hù)生命權(quán)和人格尊嚴(yán)。之所以有這些與憲法相關(guān)的問題,最根本的是對生命權(quán)的不同理解:不同的學(xué)者對生命權(quán)的解讀不同,有的學(xué)者認(rèn)為生命權(quán)是絕對的,是受國家絕對保護(hù)的,任何人包括自己都不能決定生死問題,因此個(gè)人沒有選擇死亡的權(quán)利,安樂死違背了國家的保護(hù)義務(wù),安樂死與生命權(quán)相沖突,是對生命權(quán)的侵犯,抹殺了人格尊嚴(yán)。但生命權(quán)是相對的,國家對生命權(quán)的保護(hù)是要求國家對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,安樂死并沒有與生命權(quán)相沖突。對此,通過對生命權(quán)的內(nèi)涵、性質(zhì)、國家的保護(hù)義務(wù)等方面進(jìn)行論證,以求給安樂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,在借鑒國外立法經(jīng)驗(yàn)的基礎(chǔ)上,結(jié)合我國的實(shí)際情況,對我國安樂死進(jìn)行了立法設(shè)計(jì),具體明確安樂死的適用條件、實(shí)施方式與主體、實(shí)施安樂死的程序,同時(shí)嚴(yán)格限制安樂死的濫用,明確幾種不屬于安樂死的行為以及應(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,在安樂死立法的過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)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：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)的勞動權(quán)國家保護(hù)義務(wù)[J];太平洋學(xué)報(bào);2011年07期

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

3 葉i吰，

本文編號：1782572