内容导航：

　　1、

　　legalize

　　2、

　　英语辩论赛，安乐死是否合法化

　　1、

　　legalize

　　英：【ˈliːɡəlaɪz】美：【ˈliːɡəlaɪz】

　　英：

　　美：

　　常用释义：

　　使合法化

　　vt.使合法化；公认；法律上认为…正当

　　第三人称单数--legalizes；现在分词--legalizing；过去式--legalized；过去分词--legalized。

　　1、The decision to

　　legalize

　　land trades may really be a way to break the power and corruption of these village chieftains .───这一决定令土地交易合法化，可能成为打破村庄首领权力和堕落的途径。

　　2、West Germany , by contrast, will not be able to

　　legalize

　　any form of euthanasia for a long time to come .───与之相反，西德在未来相当长的时间里都无法使任何形式的安乐死合法化。

　　3、A proposal to

　　legalize

　　marijuana in California was defeated, but a measure to streamline the states dysfunctional budget process passed.───在加利福尼亚，大麻合法化的议案被否决，而精简州不良预算却获得通过。

　　4、To

　　legalize

　　private space explorations.───使私人空间探索合法化。

　　5、I think your husband should

　　legalize

　　immigration. Please put a statue of me in Echo Park. Thank you. No, really. I want a tuxedo on the statue.───我认为你的丈夫应该使移民合法化。请在回声公园给我立个雕像。谢谢。不，说真的。我希望雕像是穿一身礼服的。

　　6、The "small property" is essentially the problem of collective construction land use right transfer the question of whether to

　　legalize

　　.───“小产权房”的问题实质上是集体建设用地使用权流转能否合法化的问题。

　　7、It has been 16 months since Australias Northern Territory became the first place in the world to

　　legalize

　　voluntary euthanasia.───自从澳大利亚的北方区成为世界上第一个将自愿安乐死合法化的地方，至今已有16个月了。

　　8、ALBanY, NY (AP) -- The top courts in two states dealt a setback Thursday to the movement to

　　legalize

　　gay marriage.───奥尔巴尼，纽约洲（AP）--两个洲的最高法院周四挫败了要求同性恋婚姻合法化的运动。

　　9、He wants to

　　legalize

　　drugs, ban involuntary commitments to mental institutions, and replace state schools with online education.───他想要使毒品合法化，禁止非自愿向精神病院提供服务，用在线教育取代公立学校。

　　1、legalised───v.使合法化（legalise的过去式和过去分词，等于legalize）

　　2、legalizer───法律判定者

　　3、delegalize───vt.使失去法律效力

　　4、illegalize───vt.使成为非法，宣布……为非法

　　5、legalise───vt.使合法化（等于legalize）

　　6、legalized───合法的

　　7、legalizers───合法化者

　　8、legalizes───vt.使合法化；公认；法律上认为…正当

　　9、legal-size───法定规格

　　2、

　　英语辩论赛，安乐死是否合法化

　　给您一点

　　参考资料：

　　Those who are against euthanasia state that euthanasia is morally andethically wrong, but this is not the end of the argument. The argument alsoincludes that euthanasia is not necessary when palliative, a medical specialtyfocused solely on pain, stress, and symptom relief, is so advanced (Center toAdvance Palliative Care, 2009). In most cases, the desire to die or suicidalthoughts have been shown to be clinical depression which is treatable. Attemptsto legalize euthanasia did not occur until the 20th Century, and history doesnot provide an adequate example to why euthanasia should be legalized. Theargument against euthanasia includes the slippery slope, that once the door ofeuthanasia is open, it becomes increasingly easier for ethics and laws to beedited, changed, and "updated" to become increasingly liberal indefinition and application. By definition, euthanasia is illegal and immoral.Euthanasia is the ending of a persons life and presents a threat to all peoplewith disabilities, chronic physical and mental illnesses, the elderly, andother vulnerable portions of the population (Euthanasia Prevention Coalition,2006).

　　One of the misconceptions put forth by the "right to die"proponents is that those against euthanasia and assisted suicide believe that aterminal patient must be kept alive by any means available, which is not true.The Catholic Church (1994, 1997), states that: "Discontinuing medicalprocedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionateto the expected outcome can be legitimate...the refusal of"over-zealous" treatment. Here one does not will to cause death;ones inability to impede it 【death】 is merely accepted. The decisionsshould be made by the patient if he is competent and able or, if not, by thoselegally entitled to act for the patient...Even if death is thought imminent,the ordinary care owed to a sick person cannot be legitimately interrupted. Theuse of painkillers to alleviate the sufferings of the dying, even at the riskof shortening their days, can be morally in conformity with human dignity ifdeath is not willed as either an end or a means, but only foreseen and toleratedas inevitable. Palliative care is a special form of disinterested charity. Assuch it should be encouraged. "

　　Some supporters of euthanasia will make the claim that the terminally illare a burden to their family or to society. Illnesses such as quadriplegia,Parkinsons, Alzheimers, and other physical and mental disabilities do createemotional and financial burdens, because the person is dependent on others forcare, and for now, these "burdens to society" are safe in ourcountry. The Netherlandsare already known for having legalized euthanasia. The practice has beenquietly expanding from just the terminally ill and elderly to includeinfants. Worse yet, Dutch euthanasia rules do not require the patient to beterminally ill, but judged only on whether or not a "livable life" isattainable. The guidelines for making this determination are known as theGroningen Protocol. According to Smith, (2006),

　　The subsequently compiled Groningen Protocol--which is expected to form thebasis for the official approval of Dutch pediatric euthanasia--similarlycreated categories of killable babies: infants "with no chance ofsurvival," infants with a "poor prognosis and are dependent onintensive care," and "infants with a hopeless prognosis,"including those "not depending on intensive medical treatment but for whoma very poor quality of life... is predicted." In other words, infanteuthanasia is not restricted to dying babies but can be based on predictedserious disability.

　　Proponents for human euthanasia claim that restrictions, laws, andgovernment oversight will provide the necessary guidelines to preventeuthanasia from being abused; however, one look at euthanasia in the Netherlandsproves that this is far from the truth. Euthanasia has been legalized for morethan a decade in the Netherlands, and according to Hendin (2000), doctors therehave become complacent about the use of euthanasia, and numerous incidents arecited in which euthanasia was used against the patients will.

　　Being alive is not equivalent to living: on this premise, both sides of thedebate about euthanasia can agree; however, the right to decide when deathtrumps life is not mans decision to make. The physicians in the Netherlands aretaking liberties and playing God with the lives of patients, often without thepatients knowledge or consent. The example set forth by the Netherlandsclearly demonstrates that euthanasia does not provide balance to the medicaladvancements that can postpone death via life sustaining machines; instead, ittips the balance in favor of physicians, nurses, and families, who are tired ofcaring for the patient, believe the patients life is of no value, and in whichpatients are given no choice. The Netherlands is the example of why eventhough euthanasia may be legal, sanctioned by legislators, and performed bydoctors, it can, is, and will continue to be abused.