英语口语高级训练(lesson6)b

2. Mercy or Murder？
　　On June 20, 1973, 23 year old Lester M . Zygnamiak walked into his older brother George,s hospital room at Jersey¹ Shore Medical Centre in Neptune², New Jersey, and shot his brother dead. George had been paralyzed from the neck down in an automobile³ accident several days earlier. The doctor had told his family that the 26 old boy would probably be paralyzed for life and would never walk again.
　　The Zygnamiaks were an extremely close family. Lester idolized his older brother and would have done anything for him, but now he felt torn. After three intensely emotional days, he decided⁴ to obey his brother's wishes. When Lester visited his brother's hospital room, he said, “Iam here today to end your pain. Is that all right with you？” His brother nodded and said yes. Then a shot rang out. Hospital staff rushed to the room, and Lester was soon hauled off to jail.
　　Lester stood trial for his brother' s murder, but was acquitted⁵ on November 5, 1973, on the grounds of temporary insanity⁶. The court had determined⁷ that he was no longer insane, and Lester was released. 3. Mrs. Ross Killed Her Daughier Because She Loved Her Mercy killing⁸, or euthanasia （from the Greek, eu-meaning good and thanos-meaning death： thus, “a good death”） is against the law. It isb considered a criminal offense⁹. Yet. individuals brought to trial for actual mercy killings¹⁰ are rarely convicted. I.ike I.ester Zygnamiak, they are usually released.
　　Such was the case with Anna Marie Ross. At twenty-five Mrs. Ross gave birth to her first child, a baby girl she and her husband named paula. The Rosses had wanted a child for several years, but during her pregnancy¹¹ Mrs. Ross had unknowingly taken a damaging drug called Thalidomide, which caused Paula to be born severely¹² disfigured. The infant had no arms or legs and her face was badly deformed¹³. Although Paula was of normal intelligence, she was totally deaf and had very poor vision.
　　Paula was expected to live a normal life span. But to survive, she would have to undergo numerous operations. It was expected that she would spend much of her life in hospitals. Anna Ross often stated that she firmly believed her child's normal intelligence would only make her more cruelly aware of her fate. She felt certain the Paula's life would be filled with anguish¹⁴.
　　So one night she put Paula to bed and gave her a bottle containing a strong sedative¹⁵. The baby died painlessly during the night. Anna Ross readily admitted to the killing. She said. “I killed little Paula because I loved her. I brought her into the world, and she was unable to end her constant pain and misery¹⁶. I felt I had to send her to God. ”A survey of more than 10,000 people taken by a local newspaper indicated that over 98 percent agreed with Anna Ross's action. Whcn she stood trial, a jury found Mrs. Ross not guilty in under three hours.
　　4. Innocent or Guilty？
　　The fact that the majority of persons brought to trial for mercy killing are usually found innocent suggests that the law against it exists only on the books or in theory. But this isn't quite true. Case records indicate that the wheels of justice do not always grind evenly.
　　While Lester M. Zygnamiak was acquitted, Harold Mohar oi Pennsylvania, involved in a similar case, was not. Mohar was convicted of voluntary manslaughter for killing his blind,cancer-stricken brother who had pleaded with him to do so. He was sentenced to from three to six years in prison and fined $ 500.
　　As a result of such uncertain consequences, many healthy people have become concerned over their right to die. If stricken with a severe mental or physical disability , they want to be assured that their lives will not be prolonged artificially by medical technology.
　　5. Legal System Should Be Established to Deal with Euthanasia Many countries have legalized mercy killing. In Uruguay the law states that, “The judges are authorized¹⁷ to forgo¹⁸ punishmen,t of a person whose life has been honorable where he commits a homicide motivated by compassion¹⁹ induced by repeated requests by the victim.” Switzerland, Norway, and Germany have adopted similar approaches.
　　American law appears in need of revision. However, some feel that legalized euthanasia would invite abuse. Any form of murder might be conveniently dubbed“ mercy killing ” by unscrupulous persons. In response, some euthanasia proponents²⁰ have suggested that our legal system establish an evaluation²¹ body to judge which requests for a mercy killing are valid²² before the act is committed.
　　6.Is There a Way to Compromise？
　　Medical science is doing all it can to extend human life and is succeeding brilliantly. Living conditions are so much better, so many diseases can either be prevented or cured that life expectation has increased enormously. No one would deny that this is a good thing-provided one enjoys perfect health. But is it a good thing to extend human suffering, to prolong life, not in order to give joy and happiness, but to give pain and sorrow？
　　Take an extreme example. Take the case of a man who is so senile he has lost all his faculties²³. He is in hospital in an unconscious state with little chance of coming round, but he is kept alive by artificial means for an indefinite period. Everyone, his friends, relatives and even the doctors agree that death will bring release. Indeed, the patient himself would agree-if he were in a position to give choice to his feelings. Yet everything is done to perpetuate²⁴ what has become a meaningless existence.
　　The question of euthanasia raises serious moral issues, since it implies that active measures will be taken to terminate human life. And this is an exceedingly dangerous principle to allow. But might it not be possible to compromise？ With regard to senility, it might be preferable to let nature take its course when death will relieve suffering. After all, this would be doing no more than was done in the past, before medical science made it possible to interfere²⁵ with the course of nature.
　　There are people in Afghanistan and Russia who are reputed to live to a ripe old age. These exceptiona'Ily robust²⁶ individuals.are just getting into their stride at 70. Cases have been reported of men over 120 getting married and having children. Some of these people are said to be over 150 years old. Under such exceptional conditions, who wouldn't want to go on living dorever？ But in our societies, to be ？0 usually means that you are old； to be 90 often means'that you are decrepit²⁷. The instinct for selfpreservation is the strongest we possess. We cling dearly to life while we have it and enjoy it. But there always comes a time when we'd be better off dead.