美國聯邦最高法院的生命倫理訟案
美國聯邦最高法院的生命倫理訟案
Bioethics Cases before the Supreme Court
● Although the Constitution nowhere mentions medicine, the Supreme Court, which in Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health (1990) assumed that a competent person may refuse unwanted treatment yet allowed states to demand clear and convincing evidence of an incompetent patient's wishes, and which in Washington v. Glucksberg (1997) held that assisted suicide is not a right rooted in the nation's traditions, has been drawn repeatedly into disputes over life, death, and bodily autonomy, most dramatically in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022), where it overruled Roe v. Wade on the ground that abortion is not deeply rooted in history, thereby returning the question to elected legislatures, a result that has left bioethics, once debated chiefly at the bedside, a standing subject of constitutional litigation.
● 排列為比較容易閱讀的方式
Although the Constitution nowhere mentions medicine,
the Supreme Court,
which in Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health (1990)
assumed that a competent person may refuse unwanted treatment
yet allowed states to demand clear and convincing evidence
of an incompetent patient's wishes,
and which in Washington v. Glucksberg (1997)
held that assisted suicide is not a right
rooted in the nation's traditions,
has been drawn repeatedly
into disputes over life, death, and bodily autonomy,
most dramatically in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022),
where it overruled Roe v. Wade
on the ground that abortion is not deeply rooted in history,
thereby returning the question to elected legislatures,
a result
that has left bioethics,
once debated chiefly at the bedside,
a standing subject of constitutional litigation.
● 分解為原初的短小句
The Constitution nowhere mentions medicine.
(nowhere 在此是否定副詞,未倒裝,等於 does not mention medicine anywhere。)
In Cruzan the Court assumed that a competent person may refuse unwanted treatment.
(assume 表「假定」,因為該案並未明確判定。)
In Cruzan the Court allowed states to demand clear and convincing evidence of an incompetent patient's wishes.
(yet 連接兩個動詞,表轉折。)
In Glucksberg the Court held that assisted suicide is not a right.
(hold that 表「判決認為」。)
The right is rooted in the nation's traditions.
(rooted 後置過去分詞的還原。此處是否定句的內層,實際語意是「該權利並非植根於傳統」。)
Disputes over life, death, and bodily autonomy have repeatedly drawn the Court in.
(be drawn into 表「被捲入」;三項並列。)
In Dobbs the Court overruled Roe v. Wade.
(where 子句的主幹。)
The Court reasoned that abortion is not deeply rooted in history.
(on the ground that 的還原。)
The Court thereby returned the question to elected legislatures.
(thereby + V-ing 表結果。)
This was a result.
(句末同位語,概括前面整件事。)
Bioethics was once debated chiefly at the bedside.
(once debated 的還原。)
The result has left bioethics a standing subject of constitutional litigation.
(leave + 受詞 + 補語。)
● 全新文法解析
1. Although 子句加主詞後的長插入(兩個 which 並列)
句型:Although + 子句, 主詞, which + 動詞 A yet 動詞 B, and which + 動詞, + 主要動詞
作用:主詞 the Supreme Court 與動詞 has been drawn 之間隔了約六十字。兩個 which 以 and which 並列,各自帶出一個判例,界線清楚。
關鍵詞彙:nowhere(完全沒有)、assume(假定)、clear and convincing evidence(明確而有說服力的證據)
2. yet 連接兩個過去式動詞
句型:assumed that..., yet allowed + 受詞 + to V
作用:yet 表轉折:承認拒絕治療的自由,卻允許州設高證據門檻。這是 Cruzan 案的兩面,用一個動詞並列就能呈現。
關鍵詞彙:yet(然而)、incompetent(無行為能力的)
3. hold that 子句,內含 is not a right + 後置過去分詞
句型:held that + 主詞 + is not a right + p.p. + in + 名詞
作用:rooted in the nation's traditions 後置修飾 right,等於 that is rooted in...。整個否定落在 is not,避免原版 no right...is rooted 的雙重結構。
關鍵詞彙:rooted in(植根於)、tradition(傳統)
4. be drawn into + most dramatically in + where 子句
句型:has been drawn repeatedly into + 名詞, most dramatically in + 案名, where + 主詞 + 動詞
作用:most dramatically in... 是插入的副詞片語,where 修飾案名,補充該案的裁決與理由。on the ground that 引出理由子句。
關鍵詞彙:be drawn into(被捲入)、autonomy(自主)、overrule(推翻)
5. thereby + V-ing,接同位語加 once 插入
句型:, thereby returning + 受詞 + to + 名詞, a result that has left + 受詞, once + p.p. + 副詞片語, + 補語
作用:thereby returning 表結果。a result 同位於前面整個行為,that 子句再補充其後果。once debated chiefly at the bedside 插在受詞 bioethics 與補語之間,以「從病床到法院」收束全句。
關鍵詞彙:thereby(因此)、standing(長期存在的)、litigation(訴訟)
● 參考翻譯
儘管憲法完全沒有提到醫療,聯邦最高法院在 1990 年的克魯贊案中,假定有行為能力者可以拒絕不想要的治療,卻允許各州要求以明確而有說服力的證據證明無行為能力病人的意願;又在 1997 年的華盛頓訴格拉克斯伯格案中判決,協助自殺並非植根於國家傳統的權利。此後法院一再被捲入有關生、死與身體自主的爭議,最戲劇性的是 2022 年的多布斯案:法院以墮胎並非深植於歷史為由,推翻羅訴韋德案,從而把問題交還給民選的立法機關。這個結果使生命倫理學,這個原本主要在病床邊辯論的領域,成為憲法訴訟中長期存在的主題。
● 逆向工程(請嘗試不看原文,還原長句)
The Constitution nowhere mentions medicine.
In Cruzan the Court assumed that a competent person may refuse unwanted treatment.
In Cruzan the Court allowed states to demand clear and convincing evidence of an incompetent patient's wishes.
In Glucksberg the Court held that assisted suicide is not a right.
The right is rooted in the nation's traditions.
Disputes over life, death, and bodily autonomy have repeatedly drawn the Court in.
In Dobbs the Court overruled Roe v. Wade.
The Court reasoned that abortion is not deeply rooted in history.
The Court thereby returned the question to elected legislatures.
This was a result.
Bioethics was once debated chiefly at the bedside.
The result has left bioethics a standing subject of constitutional litigation.
對照完整句子:
Although the Constitution nowhere mentions medicine, the Supreme Court, which in Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health (1990) assumed that a competent person may refuse unwanted treatment yet allowed states to demand clear and convincing evidence of an incompetent patient's wishes, and which in Washington v. Glucksberg (1997) held that assisted suicide is not a right rooted in the nation's traditions, has been drawn repeatedly into disputes over life, death, and bodily autonomy, most dramatically in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022), where it overruled Roe v. Wade on the ground that abortion is not deeply rooted in history, thereby returning the question to elected legislatures, a result that has left bioethics, once debated chiefly at the bedside, a standing subject of constitutional litigation.
**Cruzan(1990):**法院「假定」憲法保障拒絕治療的自由,並維持密蘇里州要求明確證據的規定。
**Glucksberg(1997):**判決華盛頓州禁止協助自殺的法律合憲;同日 Vacco v. Quill 對紐約州也作同樣處理。
**Dobbs(2022):**多數意見認為墮胎權不在「國家歷史與傳統」中根深蒂固,推翻 Roe 與 Casey,把管制權交回各州。三位大法官提出強烈異議。我只寫多數意見的理由。
**仍未涵蓋的案例:**Griswold(1965)、Casey(1992)、Gonzales v. Carhart(2007)、Gonzales v. Oregon(2006)、Hobby Lobby(2014)、Buck v. Bell(1927,優生絕育)等,若要談完整的「生命倫理訟案」,應另行補入。
留言
張貼留言