03-A. Euthanasia: For and Against

"We mustn't delay any longer ... swallowing is difficult ... and breathing, that's also difficult. Those muscles are weakening too ... we mustn't delay any longer.”

These were the words of Dutchman Cees van Wendel de Joode asking his doctor to help him die. Affected with a serious disease, van Wendel was no longer able to speak clearly and he knew there was no hope of recovery and that his condition was rapidly deteriorating.

Van Wendel's last three months of life before being given a final, lethal injection by his doctor were filmed and first shown on television last year in the Netherlands. The programme has since been bought by 20 countries and each time it is shown, it starts a nationwide debate on the subject.

The Netherlands is the only country in Europe which permits euthanasia, although it is not technically legal there. However, doctors who carry out euthanasia under strict guidelines introduced by the Dutch Parliament two years ago are usually not prosecuted. The guidelines demand that the patient is experiencing extreme suffering, that there is no chance of a cure, and that the patient has made repeated requests for euthanasia. In addition to this, a second doctor must confirm that these criteria have been met and the death must be reported to the police department.

Should doctors be allowed to take the lives of others? Dr. Wilfred van Oijen, Cees van Wendel's doctor, explains how he looks at the question:

"Well, it's not as if I'm planning to murder a crowd of people with a machine gun. In that case, killing is the worst thing I can imagine. But that's entirely different from my work as a doctor. I care for people and I try to ensure that they don't suffer too much. That's a very different thing.”

Many people, though, are totally against the practice of euthanasia. Dr. Andrew Ferguson, Chairman of the organisation Healthcare Opposed to Euthanasia, says that "in the vast majority of euthanasia cases, what the patient is actually asking for is something else. They may want a health professional to open up communication for them with their loved ones or family -- there's nearly always another question behind the question.”

Britain also has a strong tradition of hospices -- special hospitals which care only for the dying and their special needs. Cicely Saunders, President of the National Hospice Council and a founder member of the hospice movement, argues that euthanasia doesn't take into account that there are ways of caring for the dying. She is also concerned that allowing euthanasia would undermine the need for care and consideration of a wide range of people: "It's very easy in society now for the elderly, the disabled and the dependent to feel that they are burdens, and therefore that they ought to opt out. I think that anything that legally allows the shortening of life does make those people more vulnerable.”

Many find this prohibition of an individual's right to die paternalistic. Although they agree that life is important and should be respected, they feel that the quality of life should not be ignored. Dr. van Oijen believes that people have the fundamental right to choose for themselves if they want to die: "What those people who oppose euthanasia are telling me is that dying people haven't the right. And that when people are very ill, we are all afraid of their death. But there are situations where death is a friend. And in those cases, why not?

But "why not?" is a question which might cause strong emotion. The film showing Cees van Wendel's death was both moving and sensitive. His doctor was clearly a family friend; his wife had only her husband's interests at heart. Some, however, would argue that it would be dangerous to use this particular example to support the case for euthanasia. Not all patients would receive such a high level of individual care and attention.

 

03-B. Advantage Unfair

 

According to the writer Walter Ellis, author of a book called the Oxbridge Conspiracy, Britain is still dominated by the old-boy network: it isn't what you know that matters, but who you know. He claims that at Oxford and Cambridge Universities (Oxbridge for short) a few select people start on an escalator ride which, over the years, carries them to the tops of British privilege and power. His research revealed that the top professions all continue to be dominated, if not 90 per cent, then 60 or 65 per cent, by Oxbridge graduates.

And yet, says Ellis, Oxbridge graduates make up only two per cent of the total number of students who graduate from Britain's universities. Other researches also seem to support his belief that Oxbridge graduates start with an unfair advantage in the employment market. In the law, a recently published report showed that out of 26 senior judges appointed to the High Court last year, all of them went to private schools and 21 of them went to Oxbridge.

But can this be said to amount to a conspiracy? Not according to Dr. John Rae, a former headmaster of one of Britain's leading private schools, Westminster:

"I would accept that there was a bias in some key areas of British life, but that bias has now gone. Some time ago -- in the 60s and before ?entry to Oxford and Cambridge was not entirely on merit. Now, there's absolutely no question in any objective observer's mind that, entry to Oxford and Cambridge is fiercely competitive."

However, many would disagree with this. For, although over three-quarters of British pupils are educated in state schools, over half the students that go to Oxbridge have been to private, or "public" schools. Is this because pupils from Britain's private schools are more intelligent than those from state schools, or are they simply better prepared?

On average, about $ 5,000 a year is spent on each private school pupil, more than twice the amount spent on state school pupils. So how can the state schools be expected to compete with the private schools when they have far fewer resources? And how can they prepare their pupils for the special entrance exam to Oxford University, which requires extra preparation, and for which many public school pupils traditionally stay at school and do an additional term?

Until recently, many blamed Oxford for this bias because of the university's special entrance exam (Cambridge abolished its entrance exam in 1986). But last February, Oxford University decided to abolish the exam to encourage more state school applicants. From autumn 1996, Oxford University applicants, like applicants to other universities, will be judged only on their A level results and on their performance at interviews, although some departments might still set special tests.

However, some argue that there's nothing wrong in having elite places of learning, and that by their very nature, these places should not be easily accessible. Most countries are run by an elite and have centres of academic excellence from which the elite are recruited. Walter Ellis accepts that this is true:

"But in France, for example, there are something like 40 equivalents of university, which provide this elite through a much broader base. In America you've got the Ivy League, centred on Harvard and Yale, with Princeton and Stanford and others. But again, those universities together -- the elite universities -- are about ten or fifteen in number, and are being pushed along from behind by other great universities like, for example, Chicago and Berkeley. So you don't have just this narrow concentration of two universities providing a constantly replicating elite.”

When it comes to Oxford and Cambridge being elitist because of the number of private school pupils they accept, Professor Stone of Oxford University argues that there is a simple fact he and his associates cannot ignore:

"If certain schools do better than others then we just have to accept it. We cannot be a place for remedial education. It's not what Oxford is there to do.”

However, since academic excellence does appear to be related to the amount of money spent per pupil, this does seem to imply that Prime Minister John Major's vision of Britain as a classless society is still a long way off. And it may be worth remembering that while John Major didn't himself go to Oxbridge, most of his ministers did.

 

安乐死：赞成还是反对

“我们千万别再拖下去了…，我吞咽困难，呼吸困难…，那些部位的肌肉一点劲也没有了 …，千万别再拖了。” 

这是一名叫齐思·范·万德尔·尤德的荷兰人在恳求他的医生帮助他死时说的话。范·万德尔因身患重病，言语含混不清，他自己也知道根本没有康复的希望，因为他的病情在迅速恶化。

在让医生给自己注射最后一针也是致死一针之前，范·万德尔生命的最后三个月被拍成了电影，去年在荷兰电视上首次播出。在这之后20个国家先后购买了这套电视节目，每次播放，都引发了全民对安乐死问题的大讨论。

荷兰是欧洲惟一允许安乐死的国家。从技术上讲安乐死不合法，但如果医生按照两年前荷兰议会制定的严格的指导原则实施安乐死，一般不会受到法律的追究。指导原则规定：患者正在经受极大的痛苦，没有治愈的可能，患者一再请求实施安乐死。另外，必须由另外一位医生证明一切都符合上述条件；病员死亡必须向公安机关报告。

是否应该允许医生剥夺他人的生命呢?齐思·范·万德尔的医生威尔弗雷·德范·奥仁医生谈了自己对这个问题的看法：

“实施安乐死与我计划用机关枪杀一大群人不能等同，要是那样，我觉得是最恶毒不过的杀人方式了。作为医生，我这样做与用机关枪杀人绝对不同。我关心人，尽力不让他们太受罪，实施安乐死完全是另一回事。”

但许多人坚决反对实施安乐死。“反对安乐死，实施保健护理”组织主---席安德鲁·福格森说：“绝大多数实施安乐死的病例中，患者实际上在要求别的东西，他们可能是想让保健医护人员替他们与自己心爱的人或家人沟通——几乎是每个问题的背后总有另外别的问题存在。”

英国晚期病人收容院有着优良的传统，他们专门护理临终病人，照顾他们的特殊要求。英国国家收容院理事会主--席，收容运动的发起人西西莉·桑德斯争辩说，安乐死将看护临终病人的方法置之度外。此外，她还担心允许安乐死会使要求护理和得到人们广泛关怀的念头减少。“在今天的社会里，这会让老年人、残病人和依靠别人生活的人容易感到自己是负担，因此，他们感到应该从生活中消失掉。我认为任何允许合法地缩短人的生命的事情，肯定会让人们更加脆弱”。

许多人认为剥夺个人死亡之权是生硬专横的。尽管他们赞同生命重要，应该得到尊重，但他们感到生命的质量也不该忽视。奥仁医生认为，如果人们想死，他们就有选择的最基本的权力。“那些反对实施安乐死的人们告诉我的是这样的一些话：临终者没有这个权力，人们病得严重时，我们都要担心他们的死亡；但有时候死亡是个好事，在这种情况下，为什么不允许他们死呢?”但是“为什么不允许”是个可能会引起强烈反响的问题。那部反映齐思·范·万德尔死亡的片子既令人动情又令人敏感。显而易见，他的医生是他家的朋友，他的妻子也是一心想为她的丈夫好。但有人会说，用这个特殊的事例来为安乐死叫好是危险的。并非所有的病人都会受到那样的个别护理和关注。

 

不公平的优势

作家瓦尔特·埃利斯是《牛津——剑桥帮》一书的作者，他认为英国仍在牛津——剑桥老同 学关系网的控制下：一个人懂什么不重要，重要的是他认识谁。他说，在牛津和剑桥两所大学(简称牛津——剑桥)求学的少数经过严格选拔的优秀人才一开始就登上了青云之梯，几年之后，他们便乘青云之梯登上了特权和权力的顶峰。他的研究表明，所有最好的职位仍继续由剑桥毕业生把持着，百分比不到90％，也有60％或65％。

然而，埃利斯指出，牛津——剑桥毕业生只占全英国大学毕业生的20％。另外一些研究似乎也证实了他的这一看法，即牛津——剑桥毕业生在就业市场上从一开始就拥有不公平的优势。一份新近发表的报告表明，在法律界，去年由高等法院任命的26名高级法官都上过私立学校，其中21名曾就读过牛津——剑桥。

但这能说明形成了帮派吗?英国最好的私立学校威斯敏斯特学校的前任校长约翰·雷博士对此持反对看法。

“我承认过去在英国生活的某些重要领域里存在着偏见，但现在这种偏见已不存在了。在60年代或更早的某个时期，进入牛津或剑桥大学不一定全靠学业成就。现在毫无疑问，在任何客观的观察者眼里，入牛津和剑桥大学的竞争是异常的激烈。”

然而，许多人不同意这种看法。因为尽管英国3/4以上的学生在国立大学接受教育，但去牛津——剑桥大学读书的学生的半数以上曾上过私立学校，即所谓的“公学”。这难道是私立学校的学生比那些公立学校的学生更聪明吗?或是就是比他们准备得更充分吗?

每年每个私立学校的平均费用是五仟英磅，是国立学生的两倍多。所以，如果公立学校开设的课程少得多，怎么能指望他们与私立学校竞争呢?又怎么能让学生准备好牛津大学的专门入学考试呢?这个考试需要额外的准备，为此，许多公立学校的学生一般要在校多学一个学期。

直到最近，许多人还指责大学专门入学考试存有偏见(剑桥大学在1986年废止了入学考试)。

不过，牛津大学在去年二月决定废止考试，以鼓励更多的国立学生申请入学。自1996九六年秋，申请就读牛津大学的学生像申请其他大学的学生一样，将只根据他们中学的A级学业成绩和面试表现来判断录取与否，当然有些系部可能会进行专门的考试。不过，有些人反驳说，设置精英学校没有什么不妥；他们还说，从本质上讲，这类学校就不应该轻易地可以入学。多数国家是由杰出的人才领导着，并有高水平的人才集聚的学术中心。瓦尔特·埃利斯认为这一点是正确的。“但比如在法国，有40所水平相当的大学，这些大学通过更宽的基础上培养精英人才。再比如美国，有“常春藤”联合会，核心是哈佛和耶鲁，其他的还有普林斯顿和斯坦福大学等等。不过这些大学——一流的大学，加起来总数有10～15所，并且有芝加哥、伯克利和其他院校紧随其后，这样就不存在集中在两所院校范围狭窄地培养近亲精英人才的局面了。”

当谈到牛津大学和剑桥大学因录取私立学校学生数量之多而成为一流大学时，牛津大学的斯顿教授说，他和他的同事们不能忽视这样一个简单的事实：

“如果某些学校做得比别的学校好，我们必须接受这种现实。我们不是进行补习教育的场所，这不是牛津大学所做的事。”

不过，既然学习优异确实看来与在每个学生身上花的钱有关，那么这似乎在暗示，首相梅杰要让英国成为无阶级的社会的设想还十分遥远。而且值得注意的是，约翰·梅杰虽本人没有