promotion image of download ymail app
Promoted
? asked in 藝術與人文詩詞與文學 · 9 years ago

請問這段文字大致上的大意是什麼?

It means that life-sustaining drugs and/orlife-support system can be withdrawn in case of patients who are brain dead orin a permanent vegetative state (PVS) and about whom doctors are convinced thattheir revival is impossible. The court, however, rejected the appeal for mercykilling of Aruna. By lay In a historic judgment in Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug vsUnion, the supreme courting down guidelines, the court has invoked the ‘fill inthe vacuum’ theory as it did in Lakshmi Kant Pandey vs Union (1987) laying downprinciples and norms to be followed in the adoption of Indian children byforeigners and Visakha vs Rajasthan (1997) giving elaborate guidelines to stopsexual harassment of women at work place.

因為一開始是跟安樂死有關,後面幾句又扯到婦女在工作場所的性騷擾問題,所以不太懂大意該寫什麼?是只有前面才算這段話的大意嗎?

2 Answers

Rating
  • 9 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    是的,後面兩個案例只是在幫助說明,前面合法化安樂死的案例所具有的指標意義。

    這篇文章Death By Choice (http://www.deccanherald.com/content/146933/death-c... 主要在說高等法院經由Aruna vs Union的判決案例,承認被動式安樂死的合法性,並立下明文規定可以怎麼行使。因為它終結安樂死過去在法律上懸而未明的真空地位(fill in the vacuum),所以這個案例具有指標性意義。就像另外兩個案例的重要性一樣。一個是Lakshmi vs Union 案例,清楚規範了外國人如何領養印度小孩的原則,另一個則是Visakha vs Rajasthan案例,明文規定不可在工作場合對婦女性騷擾。

    你列出來的是整篇文章的第二段,我把前面的第一段也並列如下。這樣看就更清楚了。

    In a historic judgment in Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug vs Union, the supreme court rejected active euthanasia but legalised passive, non-voluntary euthanasia and laid down clear guidelines that only a high court bench of at least two judges can allow plea for passive euthanasia after bonafide consent of patient’s relatives and the opinion of an expert panel of ‘reputed doctors’ comprising a neurologist, a psychiatrist and a physician.

    It means that life-sustaining drugs and/or life-support system can be withdrawn in case of patients who are brain dead or in a permanent vegetative state (PVS) and about whom doctors are convinced that their revival is impossible. The court, however, rejected the appeal for mercy killing of Aruna. By laying down guidelines, the court has invoked the ‘fill in the vacuum’ theory as it did in Lakshmi Kant Pandey vs Union (1987) laying down principles and norms to be followed in the adoption of Indian children by foreigners and Visakha vs Rajasthan (1997) giving elaborate guidelines to stop sexual harassment of women at work place.

    2011-04-17 08:00:36 補充:

    Thanks for sharing this paragraph. I enjoyed reading this article and learning about the legality of euthanasia in India.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 9 years ago

    謝謝你喔^^~因為我一直搞不懂後面跟前面的關聯@@

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.