然而，仍然有很多人堅決反對使用安樂死。"反安樂死健康醫療"組織的主席安德魯·福格森說："在使用安樂死的大多數病例中，患者實際上需要的是其他的東西。他們可能需要在健康專家的指導下，與所愛的人或家人進行交流。"英國晚期病人收容所有著牢固的傳統，一種專門護理垂危病人并滿足他們特殊需要的特殊醫院。國家收容所委員會主席和收容運動的發起人茜西莉·桑德斯認為，使用安樂死把護理垂危病人的其他方式都排除了。她還擔心允許使用安樂死會減少很多人對于照顧和關心的要求。"在今天的社會里，這樣很容易使老年人、殘疾人和靠他人生活的人們感到自己是社會的負擔，應該從生活中消失掉。我覺得法律上任何允許縮短人們生命和作法都會使那些人變得更容易受傷害。"

　　很多人發現禁止一個人選擇死亡的權利是沒有道理的。盡管他們也認為生命很重要，并且應當尊重生命，但是生活的質量也不容忽視。范·奧依金醫生認為如果人們想死，他們應當有選擇死亡的權利："那些反對使用安樂死的人們是在告訴我們要死亡的人沒有這種權利。當他們病重時，我們害怕他們會死去。但是有的情況下死亡是人們的朋友。在那種情況下，為什么不使用安樂死呢?"

　　但"為什么不呢?"是一個會引起強烈的情感的問題。那部反映齊斯·范·溫德爾死亡情景的電影既感人又發人深醒。很顯然，這位醫生是他們一家人的朋友;溫德爾的妻子也是一心為丈夫好。然而，有些人爭論說用這種特殊事例來支持安樂死是危險的。再說，不是所有的病人都會受到如此周到的個別護理和關注。

　　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.