医生协助自杀问题的法律回应--以美国Washington v.Glucksberg和Vacco v.Quill案为例

Legal Responses to Physician-assisted Suicide:A Case Study of Washington v.Glucksberg and Vacco v.Quill in the United States

美国Washington v.Glucksberg案和Vacco v.Quill案确立了以自杀权为核心的医生协助自杀不受宪法保护。法院在梳理成文法历史和国际共识的基础上,运用吸纳检验、仔细描述、利益衡量和对比否认的实体性正当程序标准以解释宪法,并借助刑法理论区别了拒绝治疗和医生协助自杀。认定标准的选择表明保守派法官更关注未列举权利的风险。两案对中国立法的启示在于:贯彻保障人权的宪法精神于具体制度,以公权力保障生命至上转为生命质量论,协同各部门法在明确概念和共识的基础上提供法律解释,当前先在司法上对医生协助自杀行为予以出罪,后由基层通过案例反复衡量最终以立法确认。

Washington v.Glucksberg and Vacco v.Quill cases in the United States established that physician-assisted suicide,centered around the right to die,is not constitutionally protected.On the basis of sorting out the history of statutory law and international consensus,the court used substantive due process standards of absorption testing,careful description,weighing of interests,and comparative denial to interpret the Constitution,and relied on criminal law theory to distinguish between refusal of treatment and physician-assisted suicide.The choice of identification standard indicated that conservative judges are more concerned about the risks of unenumerated rights.The enlightenment of the two cases on Chinese legislation include upholding the constitutional spirit of protecting human rights within a specific system,prioritizing the quality of life over the sanctity of life,coordinating various legal branches to provide legal interpretations on the basis of clear concepts and consensus.Initially,decriminalizing physician-assisted suicide judicially,then confirming it through legislation at the grassroots level after thorough consideration in various cases.