死有重于泰山与轻于鸿毛之分，死是长眠却仍有做梦之虞。若个人基于真诚而负责的愿望，在自我决定下放弃生命，是否与国家权力相抵触，是否凌驾于国家保护义务之上？如果个人的自决权有限，那自杀与帮助、教唆自杀在刑法上应当如何处断？这也构成了本论文探讨的主题。本文以“司法论——立法论”为全文写作路径，以“教唆、帮助自杀行为应当如何处理”为主线贯穿全文，入罪证成按照“问题（论点）——反驳——提出论点——正反面验证”的思路，论证了教唆、帮助自杀行为应当入罪的问题。笔者在第一章首先论证第一个问题，即教唆、帮助自杀行为具有可罚性，法律不能对此行为熟视无睹，放任自流。从行为科学与法律规定为研讨范围，在世界文化与中国理念间穿梭，阐述不同文明、不同学科对自杀的态度。从宗教社会学论述中可以看到，在人类文明的演进过程中，法律与道德的分野，致使自杀权逐步被认可为一种自主决定权，法律已不处罚自杀。我国的自杀观虽与前者不同，但殊途同归。但是，道义对自杀的谴责仍然存在，教唆、帮助等对自杀施以影响的行为更难以被社会道德认同。规范刑法不处罚自杀行为，并非认可其正当性，而是在权衡国家对生命权的保护与个人自决权的基础上，基于刑事政策考量后的结果，因而处罚教唆、帮助自杀等介入自杀的行为成为必然。第二章以“教唆、帮助自杀行为不能以故意杀人处罚”为论点，指出司法实践中将此类行为认定为“故意杀人”的错误性。在现有概念界定与理论分野的基础上，反驳了间接正犯、实行行为、共犯理论对行为的认定，得出结论：教唆、帮助自杀行为以故意杀人罪处罚不可行，应当另设教唆、帮助自杀罪。作为一个新的论点，笔者对教唆、帮助行为入罪进行理论验证。第一层次为“证真”，以犯罪的社会危害性和有限的被害人承诺观之，正面论证上述行为具有入罪的必要性；第二层次为“证伪”，从反面证明自我负责理论不成立对教唆、帮助自杀入罪的阻碍。通过本章的分析论证，证明本章论点可以成立。第三章着重解决教唆、帮助自杀入罪后的立法设置与认定问题。前文指出，司法实务中定罪的问题需要通过完善立法解决。具体而言，在体例上，教唆自杀罪与帮助自杀罪应设置在同一罪名中，位列于侵害人身权利一章、故意杀人罪之后。之后分析教唆、帮助自杀罪的构成要件，以及与相关罪名、行为的区别，犯罪的未遂等相关问题。

Death is divided into heavier than Tai mountain and lighter than a feather, the dead is buried but still a dream.If an individual determines to abandon live based on a sincere and responsible self-determination, whether it is in conflict with the state’s power, whether it is above the State duty of protection? If the self-determination is limited, then how should we judge suicide and abetting suicide and assistant suicide in the criminal law? It is the topic of this thesis.The whole paper is written from justice to legislation, and the core question is how to analyze suicide, abetting suicide and assistant suicide. In accordance with the line of thinking of (argument) - - put forward the argument – verify, proved abetting suicide and assistant suicide should be incriminating.In the first chapter, the author demonstrated that is abetting suicide and assistant suicide behavior can be found, the law cannot turn a blind eye to the offence. Research on the behavioral sciences and regulations, go through the world culture and Chinese philosophy, the author described the attitude of suicide among different civilizations, different disciplines of suicide. From the discussion of the sociology of religion, we can see the distinction between law and morality in the evolution of human civilization resulting in suicide right gradually being recognized as an autonomous decision. The concept of suicide in China is different with the former, but it is the same thing. However, the moral idea still condemnation of suicide, abetting suicide and assistant suicide to exert , which influence on suicidal behavior is more difficult to get social and moral identity. Criminal law penalties not punishing suicidal behavior is not recognized its legitimacy, but on balance the protection of the state the right to life and personal self-determination, based on the results of the criminal policy considerations, and thus punishment abetting suicide and assistant suicide and other involved in suicide become a necessity.The second chapter is about “abetting suicide and assistant suicide behavior cannot be intentional homicide penalties" argument. It points out that such acts of judicial practice will be identified as "intentional homicide" error. On the basis of defined in the existing concepts and theoretical distinction, it refuted the indirect principal offender act aimed at the identification of an accomplice theory of behavior, concluded: abetting suicide and assistant suicide behavior of intentional murder punishment is not feasible, it should establish a separate crime about Suicide and Assistant Suicide. As a new argument, the author demarcates the crime of abetting suicide and assistant suicide in theoretical validation. The first level is that the necessity of the above acts of crime from social harm and limited commitment to the victims of view, the positive argument incrimination; the second level is that from a negative to prove self-responsible for the theory does not hold instigate or assist suicide into the crime of obstruction. Through the analysis, the argument of this chapter can be set up.Chapter III focus on solving the problems of abetting suicide and assistant suicide to incriminate legislative settings and identified. As pointed out earlier, the problems of convicting in judicial practices can be solved through perfecting legislation. Specifically, in style, abetting suicide and assistant suicide should be set in the same offense in terms of a chapter in the infringement of personal rights of intentional homicide. Then I analysis elements of the crime and related offenses, the difference between behavior, criminal attempt and other related issues of abetting suicide and assistant suicide.