「安樂死」一詞自古希臘時代出現，至十六世紀初期之前，均指和緩、舒適、美麗的理想死亡狀態，並無外力介入之意，更無積極或消極死亡之說。直至近代學者重新詮釋安樂死，以「解放悲慘生命」的動態想法，取代靜態的原意。安樂死的內涵不僅產生了質變，而且與歐洲基督教「自然死亡」的觀點，大相逕庭，在此已呈現出傳統思想與新科學觀念之對立與衝突。十九世紀末期開始，有關安樂死的討論，已漸成為歐洲與美國學界的課題。本文以德國1920年代—威瑪共和的核心時期，支持安樂死的重要論述《對於無生存價值生命滅絕的開放—其範圍與方式》為主要分析對象。1920年代從時代特殊性而言，這是德國從集權驟變為民主共和的新時代。民主政體與精神，為敏感的生命終結問題，塑造了開放、自由的議論空間。數年間，出現了許多顛覆傳統死亡觀的論述文章。而且一次大戰後，德國學、政界憂心，青、壯人口嚴重折損，人口品質有下降之危，可能導致社會重建無力、國家生產力不足。在討論人口品質的相關議題中，最負面、最極端的安樂死，因而成為選項，這也是國家經濟問題與社會困境的可能解決之道。本文以《對於無生存價值生命滅絕的開放—其範圍與方式》之論點為出發點，分析支持安樂死的論述中，包含哪些重點？具有哪些特殊性？這些論述如何建構支持安樂死的合理、合法性？雖然直到威瑪共和結束，德國政府始終沒有開放安實行樂死，但是當時的論述模式與思考重點，迄今仍然有參考價值。 From the Ancient Greek period to the sixteenth century euthanasia meant an easy or gentle death. It was also an ideal form of the end of life. Nevertheless, the English scholar Thomas More in the sixteenth century and Francis Bacon in the seventeenth century re-explained euthanasia with active thinking. Since then euthanasia meant ‘ending the Miserable Life’, which was wholly unlike the original meaning and was contrary to the idea of ‘natural death’ from the tradition of the Christianity. In the end of the nineteenth century the issue of Euthanasia became a major topic among European scholars. After World War I Germany became a democratic state, the Weimar Republic. The new liberal socio-political atmosphere encouraged many German scholars to talk about euthanasia broadly. Many of them were pro-euthanasia. The famous writing of pro-euthanasia, “The Release of Destruction of Life Devoid of Value: Its Measure and Its Form,” by Karl Binding, professor of law, and Alfred Hoche, professor of medicine, was published in 1920. The central theme of this essay examines how can we really resolve the ‘life unworthy of living’ in the society? It also shows that the vocabularies such as ‘life unworthy of living’, ‘idiot’ and etc., used by those German scholars, advocated a creative and active pro-euthanasia thinking, and brought the discussion of euthanasia in Germany to a high point. What were the main points of the pro-euthanasia and how was it constructed to be a legitimate thinking? What was the blind spot in the pro-euthanasia arguments? These questions will be discussed in this research.