euthanizes

简明释义

英[ˈjuːθənaɪz]美[ˈjuːθənaɪz]

vt. 使安乐死；对……施无痛致死术（等于 euthanatize）

第 三 人 称 单 数 e u t h a n i z e s

现 在 分 词 e u t h a n i z i n g

过 去 式 e u t h a n i z e d

过 去 分 词 e u t h a n i z e d

英英释义

单词用法

同义词

反义词

例句

1.The veterinarian euthanizes 安乐死 animals that are suffering from terminal illnesses.

兽医对患有绝症的动物进行安乐死。

2.In some cases, pet owners decide to euthanizes 安乐死 their pets to prevent prolonged suffering.

在某些情况下，宠物主人决定对他们的宠物进行安乐死以防止长期痛苦。

3.The shelter euthanizes 安乐死 stray animals when they run out of space.

当收容所没有空间时，会对流浪动物进行安乐死。

4.Many people believe that euthanizes 安乐死 should only be considered as a last resort.

许多人认为安乐死应该只作为最后的手段。

5.The law allows veterinarians to euthanizes 安乐死 animals in severe pain.

法律允许兽医对严重疼痛的动物进行安乐死。

作文

Euthanasia is a deeply controversial topic that evokes strong emotions and ethical debates. The term itself, derived from the Greek words 'eu' meaning good and 'thanatos' meaning death, refers to the practice of intentionally ending a person's life to relieve them from suffering. This concept has been particularly relevant in discussions surrounding terminal illnesses, where patients may experience unbearable pain and a diminished quality of life. In such cases, some individuals advocate for the right to choose when and how they die, arguing that it is a compassionate act. When a veterinarian euthanizes a suffering animal, it is often viewed as an act of mercy, aimed at preventing further pain and distress. However, the application of euthanizes in human contexts raises complex moral questions. In many countries, euthanasia remains illegal, while others have legalized it under strict regulations. Proponents argue that individuals should have autonomy over their own bodies and decisions regarding their end-of-life care. They believe that euthanizes can be a humane option for those enduring unbearable suffering, especially in cases of terminal illness where recovery is impossible. On the other hand, opponents fear that legalizing euthanizes could lead to a slippery slope, where vulnerable individuals might feel pressured to end their lives due to societal or familial expectations. They argue that instead of euthanizes, we should focus on improving palliative care and providing support to those in need. The debate surrounding euthanizes often intersects with cultural, religious, and philosophical beliefs. Many religions view life as sacred and oppose any form of assisted dying, while others may take a more compassionate stance, emphasizing the importance of alleviating suffering. Philosophical perspectives also vary, with some arguing for the moral permissibility of euthanizes based on the principle of autonomy, while others emphasize the sanctity of life. In recent years, the conversation around euthanizes has gained momentum, particularly as advancements in medical technology have prolonged life but sometimes at the cost of quality. Patients are increasingly seeking options that allow them to maintain dignity in the face of terminal illness. As societies evolve, so too do the laws and ethical standards surrounding euthanizes. Countries like Canada and several states in the United States have enacted legislation permitting assisted dying under specific circumstances, reflecting a shift in public opinion toward a more compassionate approach to end-of-life choices. Ultimately, the question of whether or not to euthanizes is deeply personal and varies from individual to individual. It requires careful consideration of one's values, beliefs, and circumstances. As we navigate this complex issue, it is essential to engage in open dialogues that respect differing viewpoints while prioritizing compassion and understanding. Whether one supports or opposes euthanizes, the underlying goal should always be to alleviate suffering and promote dignity in the final stages of life. In conclusion, the practice of euthanizes raises important ethical, moral, and emotional questions that society must grapple with. As we continue to discuss and legislate this sensitive issue, it is crucial to consider the perspectives of those directly affected—patients, families, and healthcare providers—and strive for solutions that honor human dignity and compassion.

安乐死是一个深具争议的话题，引发强烈的情感和伦理辩论。这个术语本身源于希腊语，'eu'意为好，'thanatos'意为死，指的是故意结束一个人生命以缓解其痛苦的做法。这个概念在围绕绝症的讨论中尤为相关，患者可能经历无法忍受的痛苦和生活质量下降。在这种情况下，一些人主张选择何时以及如何死亡的权利，认为这是出于同情的行为。当一位兽医对一只受苦的动物进行安乐死时，这通常被视为一种仁慈的行为，旨在防止进一步的痛苦和困扰。然而，在人类背景下应用安乐死则引发复杂的道德问题。 在许多国家，安乐死仍然是非法的，而其他国家则在严格的规定下将其合法化。支持者认为，个人应该对自己的身体和临终护理决策拥有自主权。他们相信，安乐死可以成为那些承受无法忍受痛苦的人的人道选择，特别是在无法恢复的绝症情况下。另一方面，反对者担心，合法化安乐死可能导致滑坡效应，脆弱个体可能会因社会或家庭期望感到压力而结束自己的生命。他们认为，我们应该专注于改善姑息治疗，并为需要帮助的人提供支持。 围绕安乐死的辩论常常与文化、宗教和哲学信仰交织在一起。许多宗教视生命为神圣，反对任何形式的辅助死亡，而其他宗教可能采取更具同情心的立场，强调减轻痛苦的重要性。哲学观点也各不相同，有些人根据自主原则主张安乐死的道德可允许性，而另一些人则强调生命的神圣性。 近年来，围绕安乐死的讨论日益增加，尤其是随着医学技术的进步延长了生命，但有时以牺牲生活质量为代价。患者越来越寻求能够在面临绝症时保持尊严的选择。随着社会的发展，关于安乐死的法律和伦理标准也在不断演变。像加拿大和美国的几个州已经制定了允许在特定情况下辅助死亡的立法，反映了公众舆论向对临终选择更加同情的方式转变。 最终，是否选择安乐死是一个深具个人色彩的问题，因人而异。这需要仔细考虑个人的价值观、信仰和情况。当我们面对这个复杂的问题时，进行开放的对话至关重要，尊重不同的观点，同时优先考虑同情和理解。无论支持还是反对安乐死，其根本目标应始终是减轻痛苦，促进临终阶段的尊严。 总之，安乐死的实践引发了社会必须认真对待的重要伦理、道德和情感问题。随着我们继续讨论和立法这一敏感问题，至关重要的是考虑直接受影响者——患者、家庭和医疗提供者的观点，并努力寻找尊重人类尊严和同情心的解决方案。