缩短生命,抑或缩短死亡?

刘宁生

<h1><b>【前言】</b>今天,纽约州长凯西·霍楚尔在纽约州首府奥伯尼城市日报《Times Union》上发表了题为“我为何支持医疗辅助死亡”的文章。凯西·霍楚尔的文章其实并没有太多新意,但作为政府官员的个人见解和立场和盘托出,不多见。 当下政府官员做决定根本不跟你解释,签字就是了,虽然不一定用自动签字笔。</h1><p class="ql-block"><br></p><h1><br></h1><h1>值得一提的是, 霍楚尔是信奉天主教的民主党人。目前, 全美12个州加上哥伦比亚特区都有类似的法律。</h1><p class="ql-block"><br></p><p class="ql-block"><br></p><h1>像许多有争议的话题一样,这个话题的任何一种观点都不可能得到所有人的认同。悖论,是我们这个世界最有生命力也是最有哲学意义的东西,自然也就是这个世界的本质。</h1><p class="ql-block"><br></p><p class="ql-block"><br></p><h1>我首先借助谷歌逐段翻译全文。在审读译文时,只对少数地方做了编辑,是因为我觉得不改心里不踏实。比如。谷歌将But as I have spoken with people tormented by pain, I have come to see this as a matter of individual choice that does not have to be about shortening life but rather about shortening dying 译为 “但是,在我与那些饱受痛苦折磨的人交谈之后,我开始意识到这是一个个人选择的问题,它并非关乎缩短生命,而是关乎缩短临终过程。” 我承认,英语 shortening dying 译为“缩短临终过程”在文义上没问题。但把 dying 直接译成“缩短死亡”也许更忠实原文, 修辞效果更佳。医学上失去生命体征是检测仪上用最小的日常时间单位来显示。但人类文化却把这个逼近死的过程用进行时的形式加以放大,以烘托 dying 的惨烈和震撼。这也许就是作者不用 shortening death, 而是 shortening dying 的原因。</h1><p class="ql-block"><br></p><p class="ql-block"><br></p><h1>话又说回来,谁能说清楚这个意义上死亡的过程是不是生命的一部分,生命中最后短暂的一部分?所以,凯西·霍楚尔呈现给我们一个悖论。悖论的价值之一就是展现相悖的价值观,不是吗?</h1> <h1><b>Gov. Hochul: </b></h1><h1><b>Why I’m supporting medical aid in dying</b></h1><div><br></div><h1><b>霍楚尔州长:</b></h1><h1><b>我为何支持医疗辅助死亡</b></h1><h1><br></h1><h1>Terminally ill New Yorkers deserve the right to make their own end-of-life decisions, with appropriate protections in place.</h1><h1><br></h1><h1>身患绝症的纽约人应该有权在适当的保障措施下,自主决定自己的临终事宜。</h1><br><h3>Two and a half centuries ago, our founding fathers established a vision of a country based on limited government and broad individual rights that together protect rights of speech, worship, privacy and bodily autonomy. Proudly, New York has long led the fights championing the rights of individuals, from civil rights to labor rights, LGBTQ rights, women’s rights, and reproductive rights. In the true spirit of this country, government has a responsibility to protect, not interfere, with an individual’s deeply personal decisions.</h3><br><h1>两个半世纪前,我们的建国先贤们确立了一个国家愿景:建立一个以有限政府和广泛个人权利为基础的国家,共同保障言论自由、宗教信仰自由、隐私权和身体自主权。值得自豪的是,纽约州长期以来一直走在捍卫个人权利的前沿,从公民权利到劳工权利、LGBTQ+权利、妇女权利和生殖权利。秉承这个国家的真正精神,政府有责任保护, 而不是干涉,个人的私密决定。</h1><br><h3>This is the context in which I have considered the Medical Aid in Dying Act, a bill to allow suffering terminally ill individuals with less than six months left to live the right to medical aid to speed up the inevitable.</h3><br><h1>正是在这种背景下,我审视了《协助死亡法案》,该法案旨在赋予那些身患绝症、生命仅剩不到六个月的患者获得医疗援助以加速不可避免结局的权利。</h1><br><h3>During this journey I listened to New Yorkers who are in the throes of pain and suffering. I heard from their children, who are watching a parent endure a slow, devastating decline. I heard stories of a parent or spouse pleading for an end to the suffering and how difficult it was to reply, “We can’t in New York.”</h3><br><h1>在这个过程中,我倾听了那些身处痛苦和煎熬中的纽约人的心声。我听到了他们的孩子讲述他们看着父母如何经历缓慢而痛苦的衰退。我还听到了父母或配偶恳求结束痛苦的故事,以及人们在面对这些请求时,不得不回答“在纽约我们无能为力”时的那种无奈和艰难。</h1><br><h3>This was heartbreaking, and it hit close to home. I watched my own mom die from ALS. I watched that vicious disease steal away the strong woman who raised me as it took her ability to walk, to eat, to speak and, ultimately, to live. I am all too familiar with the pain of seeing someone you love suffer and feeling powerless to stop it. </h3><br><h1>这令人心碎,也让我感同身受。我亲眼目睹我的母亲死于肌萎缩侧索硬化症。我眼睁睁地看着这种可怕的疾病夺走了抚养我长大的坚强女性的生命,剥夺了她行走、进食、说话的能力,最终夺走了她的生命。我太了解眼睁睁看着自己所爱的人受苦却无能为力的痛苦了。</h1><br><h3>At the same time, there are individuals of many faiths who believe that deliberately shortening one’s life violates the sanctity of life. I understand and respect those views. But as I have spoken with people tormented by pain, I have come to see this as a matter of individual choice that does not have to be about shortening life but rather about shortening dying. And I do not believe that in every instance condemning someone to excruciating pain and suffering preserves the dignity and sanctity of life. </h3><br><h1>与此同时,许多不同信仰的人都认为,故意缩短生命是对生命神圣性的亵渎。我理解并尊重这些观点。但当我与那些饱受痛苦折磨的人交谈后,我开始意识到<font color="#ff8a00">这应该是一个个人选择的问题,它并非关乎缩短生命,而是关乎缩短死亡。</font>而且,我并不认为在任何情况下,让一个人承受极度的痛苦和折磨就能维护生命的尊严和神圣性。</h1><h1><br></h1> <h3>I reflected on this during a Catholic funeral Mass for a family friend where the priest spoke of the welcome home to eternal life. I was taught that God is merciful and compassionate, and so must we be. This includes permitting a merciful option to those facing the unimaginable and searching for comfort in their final months in this life.</h3><br><h1>我在参加一位家庭朋友的天主教葬礼弥撒时,对此进行了反思。弥撒中,神父谈到了回归永生的美好。我从小就被教导,上帝是仁慈怜悯的,我们也应该如此。这意味着我们应该允许那些面临难以想象的痛苦、在生命最后几个月寻求慰藉的人,拥有一个充满慈悲的选择。</h1><br>So after careful deliberation, I decided to support legalizing medical aid in dying in very specific circumstances and with significant protections included in the law to ensure it is not misused or broadly applied.<br><br><h1>因此,经过慎重考虑,我决定支持在非常特殊的情况下将医疗辅助死亡合法化,并且在法律中包含重要的保障措施,以确保其不会被误用或被滥用。</h1><br>The bill passed by the Legislature already allowed individual doctors and religiously affiliated health facilities to decline to offer medical aid in dying. In my view, those protections were essential but not sufficient. I proposed additional guardrails that also protect family members, caregivers and doctors, and I am pleased that the bill’s sponsors and legislative leaders agreed to include them in the bill I will ultimately sign once the Legislature returns to Albany and approves the amended language.<br><br><h1>州议会通过的法案已经允许医生个人和具有宗教背景的医疗机构拒绝提供协助死亡的医疗服务。在我看来,这些保障措施至关重要,但还不够完善。我提出了额外的保障措施,以保护家庭成员、护理人员和医生,我很高兴法案发起人和立法领导人同意将这些措施纳入法案。一旦州议会返回奥尔巴尼并批准修订后的条款,我将最终签署该法案。</h1><br>These guardrails address the concerns of some who fear that vulnerable populations, including those with disabilities or the elderly, will be pressured into a decision they would not have made on their own. Confirmation from a medical doctor that the individual truly had less than six months to live, and from a psychologist or psychiatrist that the patient is capable of making the decision and not under duress, will now be required.<br><br><h1>这些保障措施旨在解决一些人的担忧,他们担心弱势群体,包括残疾人和老年人,可能会被迫做出他们本不会做出的决定。现在,法律将要求医生确认该患者的预期寿命确实不足六个月,并且需要心理医生或精神科医生确认患者有能力做出决定且未受到胁迫。</h1><br>There will be a mandatory five-day waiting period to provide the patient the chance to change their mind, and both a written and recorded oral request to confirm free will is present, with anyone who may benefit financially disqualified from being a witness or interpreter.<br><br><h1>法律将设立强制性的五天等待期,以便患者有机会改变主意;需要同时提供书面和录音的口头请求,以确认患者是出于自由意志所做出的决定。任何可能从中获得经济利益的人都不得担任证人或翻译。</h1><br>Outpatient facilities associated with religious hospitals may elect not to offer medical aid in dying, and the effective date of the bill has been extended to ensure time for regulations and training.<br><br><h1>与宗教医院相关的门诊机构可以选择不提供协助死亡的医疗服务,并且该法案的生效日期已延长,以确保有足够的时间制定相关法规和进行培训。</h1><br>Finally, this is a right afforded to New Yorkers only.<br><br><h1>最后,这是一项只有纽约市民才能享有的权利。</h1><br>These are fundamental protections to ensure vulnerable people aren’t pressured, misled or left without alternatives.<br><br><h1>这些都是基本的保障措施,旨在确保弱势群体不会受到胁迫、误导或陷入别无选择的境地。</h1><br>The Medical Aid in Dying Act will afford terminally ill New Yorkers the right to spend their final days not under sterile hospital lights but with sunlight streaming through their bedroom . The right to spend their final days not hearing the droning hum of hospital machines but instead the laughter of their grandkids echoing in the next room. The right to tell their family they love them and be able to hear those precious words in return.<br><br><h1>《临终医疗援助法案》将赋予纽约州绝症患者一项权利:他们可以在生命的最后时刻,不必待在冰冷的医院病房里,而是在家享受阳光透过卧室窗户洒进来的温暖;不必忍受医院诊疗仪器单调的嗡嗡声,而是聆听回荡在隔壁房间传来孙辈们的欢声笑语;他们可以向家人表达爱意,也能听到家人同样珍贵的爱的回应。</h1><br>I am grateful to the advocates, families and legislative supporters, especially bill sponsors Sen. Brad Hoylman-Sigal and Assemblymember Amy Paulin, who worked hard to make this happen in a thoughtful and responsible way. And I hope those who are disappointed by this outcome know this was a difficult decision for me personally. It was not made lightly. It was guided by a genuine and deeply held belief that government must respect the rights and will of the people it serves. I hope that those who oppose this legislation will be able to look with compassion on those who may make a choice they would not make for themselves. And isn’t that, at heart, what the choice and freedom our young nation promised its people 250 years ago is all about?<br><br><h1>我衷心感谢所有倡导者、家属和立法支持者,特别是法案发起人参议员布拉德·霍伊尔曼-西格尔和州众议员艾米·保林,他们以审慎负责的态度,为促成此事付出了辛勤努力。我也希望那些对这一结果感到失望的人能够理解,这对我个人来说是一个艰难的决定,并非草率做出。我的决定是基于一个真诚而坚定的信念:政府必须尊重其所服务的人民的权利和意愿。我希望那些反对这项立法的人能够以同理心看待那些可能做出与他们自己不同决定的人们。这难道不正是我们年轻的国家在250年前向其人民承诺的选择和自由的真谛吗?</h1><br>Kathy Hochul is the 57th governor of New York.<br><h1>凯西·霍楚尔是纽约州的第57任州长。</h1><br>Dec 17, 2025<br>2025年12月17日<br><br>Kathy Hochul<br><h1>凯西·霍楚尔</h1>