<h1><b>【前言】</b>今天，紐約州長凱西·霍楚爾在紐約州首府奧伯尼城市日報《Times Union》上發(fā)表了題為“我為何支持醫(yī)療輔助死亡”的文章。凱西·霍楚爾的文章其實并沒有太多新意，但作為政府官員的個人見解和立場和盤托出，不多見。 當下政府官員做決定根本不跟你解釋，簽字就是了，雖然不一定用自動簽字筆。</h1><p class="ql-block"><br></p><h1><br></h1><h1>值得一提的是， 霍楚爾是信奉天主教的民主黨人。目前， 全美12個州加上哥倫比亞特區(qū)都有類似的法律。</h1><p class="ql-block"><br></p><p class="ql-block"><br></p><h1>像許多有爭議的話題一樣，這個話題的任何一種觀點都不可能得到所有人的認同。悖論，是我們這個世界最有生命力也是最有哲學意義的東西，自然也就是這個世界的本質。</h1><p class="ql-block"><br></p><p class="ql-block"><br></p><h1>我首先借助谷歌逐段翻譯全文。在審讀譯文時，只對少數(shù)地方做了編輯，是因為我覺得不改心里不踏實。比如。谷歌將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 譯為 “但是，在我與那些飽受痛苦折磨的人交談之后，我開始意識到這是一個個人選擇的問題，它并非關乎縮短生命，而是關乎縮短臨終過程?！?我承認，英語 shortening dying 譯為“縮短臨終過程”在文義上沒問題。但把 dying 直接譯成“縮短死亡”也許更忠實原文， 修辭效果更佳。醫(yī)學上失去生命體征是檢測儀上用最小的日常時間單位來顯示。但人類文化卻把這個逼近死的過程用進行時的形式加以放大，以烘托 dying 的慘烈和震撼。這也許就是作者不用 shortening death, 而是 shortening dying 的原因。</h1><p class="ql-block"><br></p><p class="ql-block"><br></p><h1>話又說回來，誰能說清楚這個意義上死亡的過程是不是生命的一部分，生命中最后短暫的一部分？所以，凱西·霍楚爾呈現(xiàn)給我們一個悖論。悖論的價值之一就是展現(xiàn)相悖的價值觀，不是嗎？</h1> <h1><b>Gov. Hochul: </b></h1><h1><b>Why I’m supporting medical aid in dying</b></h1><div><br></div><h1><b>霍楚爾州長：</b></h1><h1><b>我為何支持醫(yī)療輔助死亡</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>身患絕癥的紐約人應該有權在適當?shù)谋Ｕ洗胧┫?，自主決定自己的臨終事宜。</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>兩個半世紀前，我們的建國先賢們確立了一個國家愿景：建立一個以有限政府和廣泛個人權利為基礎的國家，共同保障言論自由、宗教信仰自由、隱私權和身體自主權。值得自豪的是，紐約州長期以來一直走在捍衛(wèi)個人權利的前沿，從公民權利到勞工權利、LGBTQ+權利、婦女權利和生殖權利。秉承這個國家的真正精神，政府有責任保護, 而不是干涉，個人的私密決定。</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>正是在這種背景下，我審視了《協(xié)助死亡法案》，該法案旨在賦予那些身患絕癥、生命僅剩不到六個月的患者獲得醫(yī)療援助以加速不可避免結局的權利。</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>在這個過程中，我傾聽了那些身處痛苦和煎熬中的紐約人的心聲。我聽到了他們的孩子講述他們看著父母如何經歷緩慢而痛苦的衰退。我還聽到了父母或配偶懇求結束痛苦的故事，以及人們在面對這些請求時，不得不回答“在紐約我們無能為力”時的那種無奈和艱難。</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>這令人心碎，也讓我感同身受。我親眼目睹我的母親死于肌萎縮側索硬化癥。我眼睜睜地看著這種可怕的疾病奪走了撫養(yǎng)我長大的堅強女性的生命，剝奪了她行走、進食、說話的能力，最終奪走了她的生命。我太了解眼睜睜看著自己所愛的人受苦卻無能為力的痛苦了。</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>與此同時，許多不同信仰的人都認為，故意縮短生命是對生命神圣性的褻瀆。我理解并尊重這些觀點。但當我與那些飽受痛苦折磨的人交談后，我開始意識到<font color="#ff8a00">這應該是一個個人選擇的問題，它并非關乎縮短生命，而是關乎縮短死亡。</font>而且，我并不認為在任何情況下，讓一個人承受極度的痛苦和折磨就能維護生命的尊嚴和神圣性。</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>我在參加一位家庭朋友的天主教葬禮彌撒時，對此進行了反思。彌撒中，神父談到了回歸永生的美好。我從小就被教導，上帝是仁慈憐憫的，我們也應該如此。這意味著我們應該允許那些面臨難以想象的痛苦、在生命最后幾個月尋求慰藉的人，擁有一個充滿慈悲的選擇。</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，經過慎重考慮，我決定支持在非常特殊的情況下將醫(yī)療輔助死亡合法化，并且在法律中包含重要的保障措施，以確保其不會被誤用或被濫用。</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>州議會通過的法案已經允許醫(yī)生個人和具有宗教背景的醫(yī)療機構拒絕提供協(xié)助死亡的醫(yī)療服務。在我看來，這些保障措施至關重要，但還不夠完善。我提出了額外的保障措施，以保護家庭成員、護理人員和醫(yī)生，我很高興法案發(fā)起人和立法領導人同意將這些措施納入法案。一旦州議會返回奧爾巴尼并批準修訂后的條款，我將最終簽署該法案。</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>這些保障措施旨在解決一些人的擔憂，他們擔心弱勢群體，包括殘疾人和老年人，可能會被迫做出他們本不會做出的決定。現(xiàn)在，法律將要求醫(yī)生確認該患者的預期壽命確實不足六個月，并且需要心理醫(yī)生或精神科醫(yī)生確認患者有能力做出決定且未受到脅迫。</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>法律將設立強制性的五天等待期，以便患者有機會改變主意；需要同時提供書面和錄音的口頭請求，以確認患者是出于自由意志所做出的決定。任何可能從中獲得經濟利益的人都不得擔任證人或翻譯。</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>與宗教醫(yī)院相關的門診機構可以選擇不提供協(xié)助死亡的醫(yī)療服務，并且該法案的生效日期已延長，以確保有足夠的時間制定相關法規(guī)和進行培訓。</h1><br>Finally, this is a right afforded to New Yorkers only.<br><br><h1>最后，這是一項只有紐約市民才能享有的權利。</h1><br>These are fundamental protections to ensure vulnerable people aren’t pressured, misled or left without alternatives.<br><br><h1>這些都是基本的保障措施，旨在確保弱勢群體不會受到脅迫、誤導或陷入別無選擇的境地。</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>《臨終醫(yī)療援助法案》將賦予紐約州絕癥患者一項權利：他們可以在生命的最后時刻，不必待在冰冷的醫(yī)院病房里，而是在家享受陽光透過臥室窗戶灑進來的溫暖；不必忍受醫(yī)院診療儀器單調的嗡嗡聲，而是聆聽回蕩在隔壁房間傳來孫輩們的歡聲笑語；他們可以向家人表達愛意，也能聽到家人同樣珍貴的愛的回應。</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>我衷心感謝所有倡導者、家屬和立法支持者，特別是法案發(fā)起人參議員布拉德·霍伊爾曼-西格爾和州眾議員艾米·保林，他們以審慎負責的態(tài)度，為促成此事付出了辛勤努力。我也希望那些對這一結果感到失望的人能夠理解，這對我個人來說是一個艱難的決定，并非草率做出。我的決定是基于一個真誠而堅定的信念：政府必須尊重其所服務的人民的權利和意愿。我希望那些反對這項立法的人能夠以同理心看待那些可能做出與他們自己不同決定的人們。這難道不正是我們年輕的國家在250年前向其人民承諾的選擇和自由的真諦嗎？</h1><br>Kathy Hochul is the 57th governor of New York.<br><h1>凱西·霍楚爾是紐約州的第57任州長。</h1><br>Dec 17, 2025<br>2025年12月17日<br><br>Kathy Hochul<br><h1>凱西·霍楚爾</h1>