NationStates Jolt Archive

This should be banned throughout the World and those involved as its soo called acts of "mercy" should be jailed.

it is an act of mercy, you have a right to die. And that is why you can make a living will to kill your self in the events where you cannot do it yourself.

I have mixed feelings about euthanasia. On one hand it seems obvious that we all have the ultimate right to do whatever we so desire with our own bodies so long as it hurts no one else; on the other hand, can a person wishing to end their own existence be considered rational, and thus elegible for this right?

If doctors won't do it with diginity, people will do it without.

Suppose this:

A family is extremely poor and one of their family members becomes a "vegetable". They can not afford to keep them alive and the person would not want to be kept alive under those conditions.

Would it be right to keep this person alive and make the family suffer, or let him slip out of this world (if be some help), helping the family out financially?

I have mixed feelings about euthanasia. On one hand it seems obvious that we all have the ultimate right to do whatever we so desire with our own bodies so long as it hurts no one else; on the other hand, can a person wishing to end their own existence be considered rational, and thus elegible for this right?

Well if you are terminally ill, and in excruciating pain i think you'd want a release. Seems pretty sane to me.

And if i sign a living will for the possibility that i become a vegetable then i should have every right to die. Since i was perfectly sane when i decided not to have my corpse be a burden to the living.

I don't see what's wrong with euthanesia. Let the person die if he or she wants.

Suppose this:

A family is extremely poor and one of their family members becomes a "vegetable". They can not afford to keep them alive and the person would not want to be kept alive under those conditions.

Would it be right to keep this person alive and make the family suffer, or let him slip out of this world (if be some help), helping the family out financially?

Suppose this:

A family is extremely poor and one of their family members becomes a "vegetable". They can not afford to keep them alive and the person would not want to be kept alive under those conditions.

Would it be right to keep this person alive and make the family suffer, or let him slip out of this world (if be some help), helping the family out financially?

it is never right to do an evil even if it is for the greater good.

Suppose this:

A family is extremely poor and one of their family members becomes a "vegetable". They can not afford to keep them alive and the person would not want to be kept alive under those conditions.

Would it be right to keep this person alive and make the family suffer, or let him slip out of this world (if be some help), helping the family out financially?

it is never right to do an evil even if it is for the greater good.

Explain what's evil about it. A person makes a stable-minded decision to die while they are still capable of doing so. No one's rights are infringed upon, so exactly what is evil about it?

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

What's the difference between euthanasia and suicide? Dignity? Sorry but that's an emotion, and if we can't argue for or against abortion with emotions, they don't count in this one either. Of course "evil" "greater good" also fall under that category, but Of portugals probably been (female dog)ed out enough in the other threads.

If I made a "stable-minded" decision to die tommorrow but got murdered tonight, wouldn't the murderer still be charged for murder?

Euthanasia is assisted suicide, so what?

Yes, your murderer should be held accountable, because they acted to violate your rights, are thus a danger to society. Anyone supporting euthanasia does so with the idea that there are steps involved in making sure that it's a competant decision.

We take great amusement in Of portugal's staunch support of the freedom for a citizen to have a right to own a gun, but not their right to make decisions effecting their lives. The contradiction is entertaining.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

Euthanasia is assisted suicide, so what?


So what? Isn't suicide illegal? That's what.

Really...please cite the wording of the law, or its punishment. I understand the most you can find is that it's a misdemeanor in some places...

Assuming that you are correct, however, what a ridiculous argument. This proposal is to overturn the illegality of euthanasia, or assisted suicide. So thank you for stating the obvious. Laws are not maintained for the sake of tradition, we're sorry if that's unappealing to you.

we had this issue not too long ago in our senate, we legalized it because thats what the mass of our nation wanted...

As always, its easy to pontificate on such situations, and to apply your own moral or religious code to these situations.
However, all prior judgements one makes on this issue soon fly out of the window when you are put in the situation itself. I sometimes get aggreived at people making high and mighty moral pronunciations on this subject, without ever facing the terrible decisions that one faces with terminally ill people.
Now for the highly personal and emotional slant. The Pope/Ayatollah/Rabbi may forbid such an action, they're words coming from God. I, howver, have had to sit by my own mothers bedside while she says she can't face living and longer, and wants a dignified death. When it comes to Euthanasia, she should know. It was her life, a happy one, that she wanted to end. What right have I/The Pope/The Ayatalloh/The Rabbi/You got to say that she was evil?
She wasn't.

A good story, and in the spirit of such an example I'm waiting on the reasons why exactly euthanasia is a great evil. I've not seen any good reasons yet supporting this idea.

Look at it this way: If people are in such an uproar over Genetic engineering, and saying we have no right to play God, howcome we should have the right to play God with euthanasia?

My $.02 worth.

First point: most people, if they become vegetables are connected to life support (though there are instances where this is not the case.) That is, in a sense, a different issue; pulling the plug is quite different from euthanasia.

Second pont: If this vote ever came to pass before the UN, I would abstain. Why? I have not yet resolved the issue for myself.

Allow me to elaborate on why Of Portugal (and to a certain extent, myself) believe that euthanasia is evil. If your about to think, "they're both religious fanatics" you would be half correct.

It is my belief in the existence of an almighty and powerful God who loves his creation and wants to do what is best for them. Unfortunately, sometimes we do not understand why certain things are happening to us... it seems bad. I'm not saying that it is good, neither am I trying to sound high and mighty and telling those with horrible pain to suck it up... it's hard, if not impossible.

However, I also believe that whatever bad things we may be suffering through, God uses it to make better things come about. If you kill yourself, how can these better things come about?

Now, if your presupposition is that God does not exist, you would ignore this argument, but the existence of God is a totally different matter. I am simply attempting to explain the rationale by which many believe euthanasia as evil.

Conclusion: Either way you lean, neither side will truly convince the other... we can argue until the cows come home on this one, Of Portugal and myself will continue to think that euthanasia should not be done and other's who have posted will continue to think that it should be done. I would prefer not to make it legal and do my best to help these people through their pain... for the shortest way out is often times not the best.

Rad Kom
UN Ambassador
The Fiefdom of Baron Porkonia

Look at it this way: If people are in such an uproar over Genetic engineering, and saying we have no right to play God, howcome we should have the right to play God with euthanasia?

My $.02 worth.

God has no place in our argument. We argue for human rights, and the right to a free decision. Should God come into the decision, then that is the business of the person themself. That's our $.02 worth.

Conclusion: Either way you lean, neither side will truly convince the other... we can argue until the cows come home on this one, Of Portugal and myself will continue to think that euthanasia should not be done and other's who have posted will continue to think that it should be done. I would prefer not to make it legal and do my best to help these people through their pain... for the shortest way out is often times not the best.

That's all well and good for your people, however, restricting the freedoms of the people of all UN nations based on your subjective moralities is wrong. As we've stated, the argument that God does not like this only carries minimal weight with us, and such a belief should only affect those who hold it, not all the people of the UN.

Surely one has a right to die just as much as one has a right to live.

Suppose this:

A family is extremely poor and one of their family members becomes a "vegetable". They can not afford to keep them alive and the person would not want to be kept alive under those conditions.

Would it be right to keep this person alive and make the family suffer, or let him slip out of this world (if be some help), helping the family out financially?

it is never right to do an evil even if it is for the greater good.

Then, suppose there is a child in need of organs and this person who is a vegetable is a perfect match for the donation, and coincidentently he was an organ donar. There was no one else on the donar's list that matched him and this child needed an organ terribly. Would it be so wrong to end this person's life (especially being that his family and he wishes so)? Or would be acceptable to deny this child it's life because a vegetable is hanging on artifically, although no one wants him to live.

What then would you do?

it is an act of mercy, you have a right to die. And that is why you can make a living will to kill your self in the events where you cannot do it yourself.

Where there is a living will, it is not (to my mind) a question of eutrhanasia but of honoring a person's wishes.

Euthanasia becomes an issue when a person has no living will, and is too ill to express his wishes.

At that point it is inappropriate to terminate the life, unless the person's wishes can be clearly discerned from statements previously documented.

It seems to me that the question of euthanasia divides itself into two separate issues.

1) Is it okay for a person to commit suicide?
2) Is it okay for a physician to help such a person commit suicide?

On the first issue, the people of New Clarkhall are decidedly neutral. While we feel that the issue of suicide is a moral issue first and foremost, and something that our govt. cannot dictate (after all, if you want to kill yourself, we cannot logically force you to not do so).

On the second issue, the people of New Clarkhall have always maintained a firm NO. While suicide might be a personal issue, the role of a physician in it is not. We beleive that assisting someone in killing themselves directly contradicts the Hippocratic Oath...do no harm. There is no injury more final than death.

The slope is too slippery, and there is no place for a physician to maintain balance on it.

The people of lykneer believe that a person can not be considered sane if they want to die. Wanting to live is a basic human instinct. Not to follow this instinct means that there is some sort of aberration in the mental process, most often caused by pain.
Because of this fact, people who want to die cannot be of sound mind and body to make such a decision. We believe people have a right to life, not to death, so the decision can not be made by any other person. Of course, you'll realise there is a Catch 22 in this circumstance. Euthenasia could never than be legal.

The people of Lykneer fail to take into consideration that instincts are not necessarily of the good.

The people of the Kingdom of Darksphere, for example, have found out that just because your instincts tell you to crush the scull of the man who just cut in front of you in the queue, that doesnt necessarily make it right.

Also, the people of Darksphere dont see why people shouldnt be allowed to make their own choices if they only consider themselves.

The people of Darsphere find it interesting, that those groups within society that are more directly confronted with death (the old and terminally ill) are more in favor of the CHOICE of death being left to them, than those groups who are confronted with it primarily in the form of sudden accidents that take some part, or all, of their life away from them.

The people of Darksphere also believe, that nobody has the right to take away the right of any person, sane or insane, to choose death.

Everybody, however, does have the right to annoy the hell out of them by informing them how much pain they thereby inflict on others. And everybody has the DUTY to point out solutions other than death/suicide/authanasia.

/Darksphere

Euthanasia is assisted suicide, so what?


So what? Isn't suicide illegal? That's what.

Suicide is not illegal. How can you punish the offender? ATTEMPTED suicide is illegal.

If people want to check out-allow them to check out.

Conclusion: Either way you lean, neither side will truly convince the other... we can argue until the cows come home on this one, Of Portugal and myself will continue to think that euthanasia should not be done and other's who have posted will continue to think that it should be done. I would prefer not to make it legal and do my best to help these people through their pain... for the shortest way out is often times not the best.

That's all well and good for your people, however, restricting the freedoms of the people of all UN nations based on your subjective moralities is wrong. As we've stated, the argument that God does not like this only carries minimal weight with us, and such a belief should only affect those who hold it, not all the people of the UN.


Then why should the decisions of those who do not consider God's purpose take precedence over those who do. There are two sides and one shall overide when the other still won't agree.

The people of lykneer believe that a person can not be considered sane if they want to die. Wanting to live is a basic human instinct. Not to follow this instinct means that there is some sort of aberration in the mental process, most often caused by pain.
Because of this fact, people who want to die cannot be of sound mind and body to make such a decision. We believe people have a right to life, not to death, so the decision can not be made by any other person. Of course, you'll realise there is a Catch 22 in this circumstance. Euthenasia could never than be legal.

So they ought to linger in incurable pain until they inevitably die an agonizingly drawn out death. I see...how is this sane, and what does it accomplish?

Conclusion: Either way you lean, neither side will truly convince the other... we can argue until the cows come home on this one, Of Portugal and myself will continue to think that euthanasia should not be done and other's who have posted will continue to think that it should be done. I would prefer not to make it legal and do my best to help these people through their pain... for the shortest way out is often times not the best.

That's all well and good for your people, however, restricting the freedoms of the people of all UN nations based on your subjective moralities is wrong. As we've stated, the argument that God does not like this only carries minimal weight with us, and such a belief should only affect those who hold it, not all the people of the UN.


Then why should the decisions of those who do not consider God's purpose take precedence over those who do. There are two sides and one shall overide when the other still won't agree.

Why? Because those who believe in God can do as they like if it's legalized, but all people are bound to the religious ideals of a system they don't believe in if it's not. You have a right to set your own morality, you don't have the right to inflict it upon others by forcing your beliefs into law.

Conclusion: Either way you lean, neither side will truly convince the other... we can argue until the cows come home on this one, Of Portugal and myself will continue to think that euthanasia should not be done and other's who have posted will continue to think that it should be done. I would prefer not to make it legal and do my best to help these people through their pain... for the shortest way out is often times not the best.

That's all well and good for your people, however, restricting the freedoms of the people of all UN nations based on your subjective moralities is wrong. As we've stated, the argument that God does not like this only carries minimal weight with us, and such a belief should only affect those who hold it, not all the people of the UN.


Then why should the decisions of those who do not consider God's purpose take precedence over those who do. There are two sides and one shall overide when the other still won't agree.

Why? Because those who believe in God can do as they like if it's legalized, but all people are bound to the religious ideals of a system they don't believe in if it's not. You have a right to set your own morality, you don't have the right to inflict it upon others by forcing your beliefs into law.
I would say that your morals would be different than mine yet what would give you the right to set them into laws and leave my morals to wither away. It goes both ways.Either your beliefs or my beliefs will be the way this land is governed. One will win. And because of the democracy in this land, it will be majority wins.

Conclusion: Either way you lean, neither side will truly convince the other... we can argue until the cows come home on this one, Of Portugal and myself will continue to think that euthanasia should not be done and other's who have posted will continue to think that it should be done. I would prefer not to make it legal and do my best to help these people through their pain... for the shortest way out is often times not the best.

That's all well and good for your people, however, restricting the freedoms of the people of all UN nations based on your subjective moralities is wrong. As we've stated, the argument that God does not like this only carries minimal weight with us, and such a belief should only affect those who hold it, not all the people of the UN.


Then why should the decisions of those who do not consider God's purpose take precedence over those who do. There are two sides and one shall overide when the other still won't agree.

Why? Because those who believe in God can do as they like if it's legalized, but all people are bound to the religious ideals of a system they don't believe in if it's not. You have a right to set your own morality, you don't have the right to inflict it upon others by forcing your beliefs into law.
I would say that your morals would be different than mine yet what would give you the right to set them into laws and leave my morals to wither away. It goes both ways.Either your beliefs or my beliefs will be the way this land is governed. One will win. And because of the democracy in this land, it will be majority wins.

Our beliefs force nothing on anyone - they can do as they wish, and that's the difference. You seek to restrict civil rights, and fortunately, history shows us that oppressive dinosaurs such as yourself inevitably go extinct.

The people of lykneer believe that a person can not be considered sane if they want to die. Wanting to live is a basic human instinct. Not to follow this instinct means that there is some sort of aberration in the mental process, most often caused by pain.
Because of this fact, people who want to die cannot be of sound mind and body to make such a decision. We believe people have a right to life, not to death, so the decision can not be made by any other person. Of course, you'll realise there is a Catch 22 in this circumstance. Euthenasia could never than be legal.

So they ought to linger in incurable pain until they inevitably die an agonizingly drawn out death. I see...how is this sane, and what does it accomplish?

Yeah thats pretty much what they think because they want their hands to be clean when they walk away. They think they have saved someones life, done some great good, but its nothing more then torture. Give those who want it a release.

This should be banned throughout the World and those involved as its soo called acts of "mercy" should be jailed.

Your right to life also entails the right to kill yourself, just as your right to property entails the right to destroy something that's yours.

Euthanasia should be legal as long as the person himself consents to it.

How many people do you know who have wanted to commit suicide later said that they're glad they didn't? The people of lykneer know many such people. Death is a permanent solution to pain, but it is also a permanent end to life. You can't bring someone back from the dead. We're sure everyone has at one time or another wanted to die because the pain of living was terrible but later we usually will have that happiness for being alive again.
People whose minds are warped by pain cannot make decisions for themselves because pain does make people unstable, even hallucinate. People with sever psychological problems do not legally have the right to make decisions for themselves, and you will have psychological problems if you are in extreme pains. Sufferers cannot be their conscious selves when they are in pain.
There is a sanity in letting people feel pain. Of course, we don't enjoy that people are in pain and we don't like it when they feel the pain, but not allow people to commit suicide is to allow them not to suffer from a possible mistake permanently.
The people of Lykneer have a very deep sympathy to people who are suffering from terrible illnesses, but they cannot make this kind of decision specifically because they are in pain. Governments do not allow victims who's love ones have been murdered to judge the outcome of the murderer because these victims will not make a fair decision because of the pain they feel. People in severe physical or emotional pain cannot make life-ending decisions either.

It's their right, however.

Conclusion: Either way you lean, neither side will truly convince the other... we can argue until the cows come home on this one, Of Portugal and myself will continue to think that euthanasia should not be done and other's who have posted will continue to think that it should be done. I would prefer not to make it legal and do my best to help these people through their pain... for the shortest way out is often times not the best.

That's all well and good for your people, however, restricting the freedoms of the people of all UN nations based on your subjective moralities is wrong. As we've stated, the argument that God does not like this only carries minimal weight with us, and such a belief should only affect those who hold it, not all the people of the UN.


Then why should the decisions of those who do not consider God's purpose take precedence over those who do. There are two sides and one shall overide when the other still won't agree.

Why? Because those who believe in God can do as they like if it's legalized, but all people are bound to the religious ideals of a system they don't believe in if it's not. You have a right to set your own morality, you don't have the right to inflict it upon others by forcing your beliefs into law.
I would say that your morals would be different than mine yet what would give you the right to set them into laws and leave my morals to wither away. It goes both ways.Either your beliefs or my beliefs will be the way this land is governed. One will win. And because of the democracy in this land, it will be majority wins.

Our beliefs force nothing on anyone - they can do as they wish, and that's the difference. You seek to restrict civil rights, and fortunately, history shows us that oppressive dinosaurs such as yourself inevitably go extinct.
Your beliefs force everything on everyone when they are made into law, Just like mine would too. That's all I am saying. You want to crush the christians for trying to force their beliefs on you when all they are doing is caring for you and your eternal destination. We both believe separate things but what gives you or anybody else the right to say that the christian morals are wrong and should not be adopted into law. If you can tell me where the christian morals are not beneficial to society I will back down.

Tripolo,

There is a difference between freedom and authoritarianism. This is about the freedom to take a positive step, which euthanasia is in some cases. It will need checks and balances, and firm rules, but that does not mean it should be banned outright.

Also, religious people have plenty of freedom to obey the dictates of their religions. If it's against your religion to receive a blood donation (or you just sincerely don't want one), and the lack of one will kill you, then the doctors can't give you a blood donation. That's another kind of dying with dignity. My Granny, partly for religious reasons, had a "do not resuscitate" card around her neck for many years and right up to her death - she wanted to go when her time was up. How is it your business to keep those who want to die alive against their wishes?

Your beliefs force everything on everyone when they are made into law, Just like mine would too. That's all I am saying. You want to crush the christians for trying to force their beliefs on you when all they are doing is caring for you and your eternal destination. We both believe separate things but what gives you or anybody else the right to say that the christian morals are wrong and should not be adopted into law. If you can tell me where the christian morals are not beneficial to society I will back down.

That doesn't make sense. It's not as if allowing euthanasia would force anyone to kill themselves. The answer is simple -- if you don't want it, don't get it.

Your right to life also entails the right to kill yourself, just as your right to property entails the right to destroy something that's yours.

Euthanasia should be legal as long as the person himself consents to it.

We tend to agree. But the important thing is to ensure that there really IS consent--and that legalised euthanasia is not simply being used to get rid of the elderly, the sick, and the unwanted.

We tend to agree. But the important thing is to ensure that there really IS consent--and that legalised euthanasia is not simply being used to get rid of the elderly, the sick, and the unwanted.

As always, the test of any idea is putting it into specifics, and that's where I start to see some problems with euthanasia. If the person is still capable of making decisions, of course it's obvious whether or not there is actual consent.

If the person isn't mentally competent, though -- say, they're heavily medicated or in a coma -- the issue could get more complicated. General consensus is that a person's family would know what he/she wanted, and so medical decisions are typically left to the family. It's easy to write this off by saying "Oh, well, once it's obvious that the person won't wake up, let the family decide," but it's almost never obvious whether the person will wake up from a coma or not, or how long it would take them to do so. In that scenario, it's more debatable what should be allowed. I still think a family should be allowed to decide, but eh.

Your right to life also entails the right to kill yourself, just as your right to property entails the right to destroy something that's yours.

Euthanasia should be legal as long as the person himself consents to it.

We tend to agree. But the important thing is to ensure that there really IS consent--and that legalised euthanasia is not simply being used to get rid of the elderly, the sick, and the unwanted.

Agreed.

We tend to agree. But the important thing is to ensure that there really IS consent--and that legalised euthanasia is not simply being used to get rid of the elderly, the sick, and the unwanted.

As always, the test of any idea is putting it into specifics, and that's where I start to see some problems with euthanasia. If the person is still capable of making decisions, of course it's obvious whether or not there is actual consent.

If the person isn't mentally competent, though -- say, they're heavily medicated or in a coma -- the issue could get more complicated. General consensus is that a person's family would know what he/she wanted, and so medical decisions are typically left to the family. It's easy to write this off by saying "Oh, well, once it's obvious that the person won't wake up, let the family decide," but it's almost never obvious whether the person will wake up from a coma or not, or how long it would take them to do so. In that scenario, it's more debatable what should be allowed. I still think a family should be allowed to decide, but eh.

We're not quite sure either. But we're inclined to think that in such a case, if the best-informed medical opinion is that the person will probably never be able to regain enough mental ability to give (or withhold) consent, the family should decide the issue.

I don't have a problem with euthanasia if the person has specified it in their will or expressed their wish to die. Unlike abortion for example, they can make their own choice over whether they want to live. If people are in a vegetable state and show no signs of coming out, then it would seem to be down to the family as to whether they want their loved one to die a dignified death or whether they want to keep them alive in the hope that they may wake up. To whoever said that you shouldn't commit a small evil for a greater good...I take it you never tell a white lie? If the evil to be committed is somewhere on the level of genocide then yes, it may be too big a step to take, but to kill someone because they have explicitly asked you to in order to relieve their suffering...not quite the same thing.

The people of lykneer believe that a person can not be considered sane if they want to die. Wanting to live is a basic human instinct. Not to follow this instinct means that there is some sort of aberration in the mental process, most often caused by pain.
Because of this fact, people who want to die cannot be of sound mind and body to make such a decision. We believe people have a right to life, not to death, so the decision can not be made by any other person. Of course, you'll realise there is a Catch 22 in this circumstance. Euthenasia could never than be legal.

So they ought to linger in incurable pain until they inevitably die an agonizingly drawn out death. I see...how is this sane, and what does it accomplish?

Yeah thats pretty much what they think because they want their hands to be clean when they walk away. They think they have saved someones life, done some great good, but its nothing more then torture. Give those who want it a release.

Indeed, we see this as one of the greatest possible violations of a person's civil rights - taking away a person's right to control their own life.

Our beliefs force nothing on anyone - they can do as they wish, and that's the difference. You seek to restrict civil rights, and fortunately, history shows us that oppressive dinosaurs such as yourself inevitably go extinct.
Your beliefs force everything on everyone when they are made into law, Just like mine would too. That's all I am saying. You want to crush the christians for trying to force their beliefs on you when all they are doing is caring for you and your eternal destination. We both believe separate things but what gives you or anybody else the right to say that the christian morals are wrong and should not be adopted into law. If you can tell me where the christian morals are not beneficial to society I will back down.

Tell me what legalizing euthanasia forces on anyone. Go ahead, we're waiting.

As for why your morals are not beneficial, you want to force people to linger in pain until death eventually claims them days, weeks, or months later. That's tantamount to torture in our opinion, and we rebuke you for such a terrible violation of human rights.

euthenasia forces many people to consider the option of suicide rather than liveing out their life. Often in countries with this abhorable law this murder the children chose this option for their not longer completely conscience parents. Alot of these people do this to their parents because they just want them off thier hands. Euthasia is a form of suicide and last time i checked suicide is illegal so why should this be legal it just a foot in the door of legalizing suicide. ohh and anbar please dont rebuke me!

euthenasia forces many people to consider the option of suicide rather than liveing out their life. Often in countries with this abhorable law this murder the children chose this option for their not longer completely conscience parents. Alot of these people do this to their parents because they just want them off thier hands. Euthasia is a form of suicide and last time i checked suicide is illegal so why should this be legal it just a foot in the door of legalizing suicide. ohh and anbar please dont rebuke me!

It doesn't force people to consider suicide.

Legalizing homosexual marriages doesn't mean you HAVE to be homosexual. Legalizing drugs doesn't mean you HAVE to do drugs. Legalizing dropping out of school doesn't mean you HAVE to drop out of school. Legalizing chairs doesn't mean you HAVE to buy chairs. Etc, etc.

Suppose this:

A family is extremely poor and one of their family members becomes a "vegetable". They can not afford to keep them alive and the person would not want to be kept alive under those conditions.

Would it be right to keep this person alive and make the family suffer, or let him slip out of this world (if be some help), helping the family out financially?

it is never right to do an evil even if it is for the greater good.

That is an interesting argument that suffers from what I like to call "flawed causality". Actually, I made up that term just now but I have thought of the idea of it for some time.

You are thinking that you are killing somebody to prevent them from suffering -- doing evil for a greater good. But by NOT doing so, you are keeping them alive and causing them to suffer -- or in other words, causing them to suffer in order to keep them alive, which is to say doing evil for a "greater" good.

There is no option that avoids evil, therefore you MUST decide upon a greater good -- non-suffering, or non-killing of a person who has expressed a will to be killed. To me, it seems pretty clear that the first option is the greater good (or alternately, the lesser evil).

I think euthanasia should be legalized and i think suicide should be legal. If people want to die, they have that right. When it comes to suicide, if people were diagnosed properly with mental illnesses and given medication and counselling, there would be a lot less suicides. Most are caused by mental illnesses such as depression or schizophrenia. As for euthanasia, obviously if they enacted a law there would be limitations to it so you can't just kill someone to get them off your back. Usually when a person is declared clinically brain dead, it is an accurate diagnosis and it really means the person won't wake up. It takes at least two doctors to diagnose it, sometimes more. If you want to make it illegal in your country, go ahead, but i have already legalized it mine, multiple times.

Suppose this:

A family is extremely poor and one of their family members becomes a "vegetable". They can not afford to keep them alive and the person would not want to be kept alive under those conditions.

Would it be right to keep this person alive and make the family suffer, or let him slip out of this world (if be some help), helping the family out financially?

it is never right to do an evil even if it is for the greater good.

That is an interesting argument that suffers from what I like to call "flawed causality". Actually, I made up that term just now but I have thought of the idea of it for some time.

You are thinking that you are killing somebody to prevent them from suffering -- doing evil for a greater good. But by NOT doing so, you are keeping them alive and causing them to suffer -- or in other words, causing them to suffer in order to keep them alive, which is to say doing evil for a "greater" good.

There is no option that avoids evil, therefore you MUST decide upon a greater good -- non-suffering, or non-killing of a person who has expressed a will to be killed. To me, it seems pretty clear that the first option is the greater good (or alternately, the lesser evil).

no letting a person suffer is not a sin. How is it evil if we do all we can to releave the person from this besides murder?

I think euthanasia should be legalized and i think suicide should be legal. If people want to die, they have that right. When it comes to suicide, if people were diagnosed properly with mental illnesses and given medication and counselling, there would be a lot less suicides. Most are caused by mental illnesses such as depression or schizophrenia. As for euthanasia, obviously if they enacted a law there would be limitations to it so you can't just kill someone to get them off your back. Usually when a person is declared clinically brain dead, it is an accurate diagnosis and it really means the person won't wake up. It takes at least two doctors to diagnose it, sometimes more. If you want to make it illegal in your country, go ahead, but i have already legalized it mine, multiple times.

i disagree with both eutanasia and suicides being legal. you mentioned mental ilnesses and how then i would not be ok. well isnt it an ill ness to want to kill yourself. you are born with an instinct of survival and wanting the opposite is out of the ordinary soo would that not imply a meant ill ness?

Allow me to elaborate on why Of Portugal (and to a certain extent, myself) believe that euthanasia is evil. If your about to think, "they're both religious fanatics" you would be half correct.

It is my belief in the existence of an almighty and powerful God who loves his creation and wants to do what is best for them. Unfortunately, sometimes we do not understand why certain things are happening to us... it seems bad. I'm not saying that it is good, neither am I trying to sound high and mighty and telling those with horrible pain to suck it up... it's hard, if not impossible.

However, I also believe that whatever bad things we may be suffering through, God uses it to make better things come about. If you kill yourself, how can these better things come about?

Although I am not myself religious, I can certainly understand these points. The Community of Gurthark contains many religious individuals, including many who would find euthanasia an unacceptable option for precisely the reasons you state, and we would never dream of forcing them to submit to euthanasia.

However, your argument simply serves to hilight how deeply personal is the choice to continue living in the face of terminal and painful disease. Perhaps you may feel that euthanasia is foolish (since it denies you whatever "good things" God has planned for you), but that does not mean it should be banned. Even if it is a mistake, it is a mistake people should--indeed, must--be allowed to make for themselves.

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

euthenasia forces many people to consider the option of suicide rather than liveing out their life. Often in countries with this abhorable law this murder the children chose this option for their not longer completely conscience parents. Alot of these people do this to their parents because they just want them off thier hands. Euthasia is a form of suicide and last time i checked suicide is illegal so why should this be legal it just a foot in the door of legalizing suicide. ohh and anbar please dont rebuke me!

Oh, Of portugal, where would we start in rebuking you? Your government oppresses your people at every turn, has no understanding of legislative actions, and your representative to the UN is unable to master spelling, grammar, or punctuation. No, we won't rebuke you, merely pity your people and offer them safe haven should they decide to move to a real nation.

The Global Market has dealt with your other points nicely. Have a nice day.

no letting a person suffer is not a sin. How is it evil if we do all we can to releave the person from this besides murder?

It is evil to FORCE a person to suffer. All you can do is not always enough.


As for a person wanting to commit suicide being insane it depends on the circumstance. And deciding to die peacefully is a better option then to suffer through excruciating pain before you die an ignoble death. I can make this decision here and now, i am perfectly sane, but i know there are things worse then death.


Edit: Sorry anbar i didn't read your post about not rebuking him

Suppose this:

A family is extremely poor and one of their family members becomes a "vegetable". They can not afford to keep them alive and the person would not want to be kept alive under those conditions.

Would it be right to keep this person alive and make the family suffer, or let him slip out of this world (if be some help), helping the family out financially?

it is never right to do an evil even if it is for the greater good.

That is an interesting argument that suffers from what I like to call "flawed causality". Actually, I made up that term just now but I have thought of the idea of it for some time.

You are thinking that you are killing somebody to prevent them from suffering -- doing evil for a greater good. But by NOT doing so, you are keeping them alive and causing them to suffer -- or in other words, causing them to suffer in order to keep them alive, which is to say doing evil for a "greater" good.

There is no option that avoids evil, therefore you MUST decide upon a greater good -- non-suffering, or non-killing of a person who has expressed a will to be killed. To me, it seems pretty clear that the first option is the greater good (or alternately, the lesser evil).

Quite a clever point - well done. We applaud your logic.

personally I think some arguments are best left unsaid, like this one. It's just amazing how ridiculous this is. I see nothing wrong with a person wanting to kill themselves if they're in great pain or otherwise and need assistance to kill yourself. what's so evil about ending ur own life if u want to? every person has a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If we're the land of the free, how come people don't have the freedom to smoke or do drugs in their own home while not hurting others or be a prostitute but you can't even kill yourself? If the american gov't wants to call that the land of the free, personally I'm not amused or satisfied. What would the fathers think 200 years after they created the US if they came here and found out people don't even have the right to control their own lives anymore? If a person helps someone else take their own life theyr'e jailed??

this whole debate is ridiculous b/c if a person wants to live, let them. but if someone wants to die, then if they ask for help help them out or whatever. You know. euthanasia should always be legal. that's why I always say yes to legalizing euthanasia for my nationstate on the issue.

this is a very trickey subject i think that if somone is surely going to die and is suffering and they wish to die then i guess they should be allowed to

Suppose this:

A family is extremely poor and one of their family members becomes a "vegetable". They can not afford to keep them alive and the person would not want to be kept alive under those conditions.

Would it be right to keep this person alive and make the family suffer, or let him slip out of this world (if be some help), helping the family out financially?

it is never right to do an evil even if it is for the greater good.

That is an interesting argument that suffers from what I like to call "flawed causality". Actually, I made up that term just now but I have thought of the idea of it for some time.

You are thinking that you are killing somebody to prevent them from suffering -- doing evil for a greater good. But by NOT doing so, you are keeping them alive and causing them to suffer -- or in other words, causing them to suffer in order to keep them alive, which is to say doing evil for a "greater" good.

There is no option that avoids evil, therefore you MUST decide upon a greater good -- non-suffering, or non-killing of a person who has expressed a will to be killed. To me, it seems pretty clear that the first option is the greater good (or alternately, the lesser evil).

no letting a person suffer is not a sin. How is it evil if we do all we can to releave the person from this besides murder?

Thank you for seeing my point Askalaria.

Note: I will not condemn people for not viewing a topic the way I do, just for clarification. So no harm, no foul play.

Moreover, answer this:

Does the government have the right to tell someone they MUST live?

No, that is not a power expressed in the constitution. Therefore, the government can not say that we MUST live. Indeed, we can not kill. However, with today's technology (and God I love it) we have the ability to artificially keep people alive. However, if a person would have died naturally and is being kept alive artificially (in contrast to their wishes), would that not be wrong?

If they wanted to die, where about to die, and are being kept alive regardless to their wishes, does that justify the system?

Think hard about that. I know you are against killing, but do not let your values competely blind you. You need to see the opposing side in a debate in order to debate well.

Just seriously think about it for me. I will anticipate a response.

Perhaps you may feel that euthanasia is foolish (since it denies you whatever "good things" God has planned for you), but that does not mean it should be banned. Even if it is a mistake, it is a mistake people should--indeed, must--be allowed to make for themselves.

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

This is perhaps, the only real response that I was looking for in this debate. My appreciations, your input has given me a deeper understanding of the issue at hand.

I am opposed to euthanasia. That is the stance of this government. If ever someone I know was considering it, I would discourage them highly. But, I also believe that God honours a person's free will. I will do all within my personal power to discourage euthanasia, suicide, and all its many forms... however, I will abstain on such a vote because of the main point brought up in Miranda's comments.

Allow me to perhaps introduce a new perspective, however, with this new state of mind that I have entered.

Allow me to create the analogy to marriage. Too often, people will commit themselves to marriage with another person in an impetuous moment of emotion, only to realize that they had not spent enough time with their spouse to realize that this person is just not for them. Othertimes, because divorce is so easily obtained, the two sides will not even try to resolve the first difficult conflict that comes along; the instant answer for them is to get a divorce because they obviously can't get along because they have some fights.

Thus, many people will often spend a long time in a period of courtship to determine if the other person is truly the significant other. THey also undergo pre-marriage counselling to evaluate if the other person is who they really want to live with for the rest of their life.

Earlier on in that post Googleplex made, she stated that the choice was personal. Allow me to add another adjective. The choice is also emotional. Emotional decisions are often impetuous.

Therefore, I propose the following:

That all people considering euthanasia carefully consider the option, with the help of a professional, realizing that [like marriage] this is a momentous decision and that [unlike marriage] the decision can never be reversed. The points about wanting to kill yourself being a disease are rough but true in a sense. Many people will realize that perhaps it is better to live after thinking things through rationally, others may decide that they really do want to go. Let's just make sure that it is not an instantaneous and spur of the moment decision that the person is making, caused by the extreme stress of the pain they are going through.

I also propose that support groups be sponsored to help these people. Some wish to commit suicide because not only are they suffering intense pain but because they feel unloved by the world. This is why many teens attempt to commit suicide, because they are either ostracized in school, picked on and labelled weird and loners [just to name the mild few]. If the people felt that they were wanted, truly wanted, in this world, maybe they would find it within themselves to wish to continue living, despite the pain. Most great people have overcome incredible hardships to get where they are and to develop the character that they have (or had). Perhaps we can breed more great people by supporting them through this time of pain and trouble, leading them to great things and making them feel like life really was worthwhile.

I ask you to consider this proposal; not only does it still leave the end decision up to the person, but it also understands and respects the real reason that "right-wing conservative religous nuts" are opposed to euthanasia.

Rad Kom
UN Ambassador
The Fiefdom of Baron Porkonia

AB.IMP.CAES.GEKKO.MALLEVS.REX.ETVRIAE.IMP.LAT.SEMP.AVG

We would like to commend Baron Porkonia's points, and establish an addendum or two in favor making euthanasia a viable option for those whom it would benefit.

Concerning the removal of life support systems, We propose that, if no will in support or disfavor of life support may be found in the patient's own words, their life or death shall be put to a vote amongst their closest family members and friends, who shall best be able to estimate the patient's likely volition, a jury-body excepting, of course, any family members or aquaintances suspected of wishing the patient's demise for alterior purposes.

For the first, We maintain that each person's life should be his or her own property, that as long as the person is not a detriment to the state and enemy of justice, each may be able to live or die as they choose without government interference.

Regarding those who may, due to emotioal distresses resulting from social awkwardnesses, wish to kill themselves, those commonly known as suicides, these persons are typically emotionally unstable and obviously dangerous. While all about them, perhaps including their governing bodies, should do what is possible to disuade disturbed individuals from taking thier own lives, it is best they are ultimately given the option of removing themsleves from life and society in a peaceful manner, rather than being forced into a position where these distrubances and violent tendencies may be transfered to others. That is, We justly maintain that it is better to allow violent, distrubed individuals to take their own life rather than, perhaps, owing to the same disease of the mind, taking the lives of other individuals unjustly or otherwise producing a negative impact upon the State and society.

Thus it is necessary that a state of justice and peace shall legalize euthanasia, not only because the state has not the right to so control the lives of its subjects, but also because this institution allows potentially dangerous segments to remove themselves from society, rather than endanger it.

Perhaps you may feel that euthanasia is foolish (since it denies you whatever "good things" God has planned for you), but that does not mean it should be banned. Even if it is a mistake, it is a mistake people should--indeed, must--be allowed to make for themselves.

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

This is perhaps, the only real response that I was looking for in this debate. My appreciations, your input has given me a deeper understanding of the issue at hand.

I am opposed to euthanasia. That is the stance of this government. If ever someone I know was considering it, I would discourage them highly. But, I also believe that God honours a person's free will. I will do all within my personal power to discourage euthanasia, suicide, and all its many forms... however, I will abstain on such a vote because of the main point brought up in Miranda's comments.


Yes God honors a person's free will but he expects you to use it correctly! He gave you as body and expects you to use it correctly. Everything God gave you he intended for good. Because God is perfect and all good and he would not wish you to do anything evil because that would be contradictory to God. And if God contadicts himself that would make hima liar. So by saying he is ok with us throwing our lives away then you are calling God a liar.

Sorry to bring God into the forun but i could resist with this rediculous comment.

Yes God honors a person's free will but he expects you to use it correctly! He gave you as body and expects you to use it correctly. Everything God gave you he intended for good. Because God is perfect and all good and he would not wish you to do anything evil because that would be contradictory to God. And if God contadicts himself that would make hima liar. So by saying he is ok with us throwing our lives away then you are calling God a liar.

Sorry to bring God into the forun but i could resist with this rediculous comment.

Not everyone follows the same religion you do. That aside, I'm still not understanding how supporting euthanasia could be equated to calling God a liar, but that might be just me.

Perhaps you may feel that euthanasia is foolish (since it denies you whatever "good things" God has planned for you), but that does not mean it should be banned. Even if it is a mistake, it is a mistake people should--indeed, must--be allowed to make for themselves.

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

This is perhaps, the only real response that I was looking for in this debate. My appreciations, your input has given me a deeper understanding of the issue at hand.

I am opposed to euthanasia. That is the stance of this government. If ever someone I know was considering it, I would discourage them highly. But, I also believe that God honours a person's free will. I will do all within my personal power to discourage euthanasia, suicide, and all its many forms... however, I will abstain on such a vote because of the main point brought up in Miranda's comments.


Yes God honors a person's free will but he expects you to use it correctly! He gave you as body and expects you to use it correctly. Everything God gave you he intended for good. Because God is perfect and all good and he would not wish you to do anything evil because that would be contradictory to God. And if God contadicts himself that would make hima liar. So by saying he is ok with us throwing our lives away then you are calling God a liar.

Sorry to bring God into the forun but i could resist with this rediculous comment.

Greetings:

While coming into this discussion very late, there are only three points the Royal Commonwealth would like to make.

First, euthanasia should not be made by the United Nations a right of the individual that must be accepted by the national government. Nor, for that matter, should the UN necessarily illegalize it. Oakeshottland would rejoice if such a procedure was banned, but it is the decision of each nation itself whether to accept or reject self-killing. It is not the UN's place to decide for them.

Second, for all those states that see the core tgo individual worth as the holding of rights, how can one defend self-termination? Keeping the matter totally secular, it would appear (at least in the eyes of the state) that death would equate with the total loss of all rights for the individual. Can the state, as a defender of individual rights, allow for the extinguishing of all rights, even if chosen? Similarly, if a person chose freely to become a slave, would that be acceptable? And if not, why is it different than accepting euthanasia?

Third, the taking away of life is always a tragic thing. Especially if the state must be involved (either through war or through execution), the ending of life must assuredly be a matter of necessity, not of convenience. Are the old, the disabled, the sick, to be pressured by family, friends, insurance agencies, and so forth, to "relieve" themselves, their familes, and society of the burden of their existence? There was a term in another realm, many many years ago. It was lebensunwertes Leben (forgive me if the spelling is wrong - my German is shaky). Roughly translated, it means "life unworthy of life," an idea that started with euthanasia and ended with the medicalizing of mass murder and genocide. I would accuse no one here of such hideous aims. But I would warn my fellow representatives in the UN - our actions have consequences, and once any human life is minimized, all are threatened. The Royal Commonwealth hopes that the issue of euthanasia will be left to the separate nations themselves.

With Respect,
Minister of Foreign Affairs Voegelin, Royal Commonwealth of Oakeshottland.

Yes God honors a person's free will but he expects you to use it correctly! He gave you as body and expects you to use it correctly. Everything God gave you he intended for good. Because God is perfect and all good and he would not wish you to do anything evil because that would be contradictory to God. And if God contadicts himself that would make hima liar. So by saying he is ok with us throwing our lives away then you are calling God a liar.

Not once did I say God is ok with us throwing our lives away. My point is simply that God respects a person's choice to stray away from him. He didn't stop Adam and Eve from eating the apple in the Garden of Eden. Why? Because he wanted us to have a free will, so that we can truly love him.

I believe one's decision to commit suicide grieves God's heart; you obviously didn't read my post very carefully. I am still VERY opposed to euthanasia. But if God created free will, the freedom to choose whether you will sin or not, who is the human to take it away?

I do like the most recent point made. I shall elaborate further, some domestic issues call.

Rad Kom
UN Ambassador
The Fiefdom of Baron Porkonia

AB.IMP.CAES.GEKKO.MALLEVS.REX.ETVRIAE.IMP.LAT.SEMP.AVG


Second, for all those states that see the core tgo individual worth as the holding of rights, how can one defend self-termination? Keeping the matter totally secular, it would appear (at least in the eyes of the state) that death would equate with the total loss of all rights for the individual. Can the state, as a defender of individual rights, allow for the extinguishing of all rights, even if chosen? Similarly, if a person chose freely to become a slave, would that be acceptable? And if not, why is it different than accepting euthanasia?


We couldn't disagree more. To insist that because the right to live, the most important of personal rights, should be granted by the state, that the state must force the person to live, is ridiculous. Truly, the 'right to life' must necessarily include the right to either live or terminate one's own life. When We give Our people the right to congregate, We do not FORCE them to congregate.. they may never join any crowd at all if they so wish. When We give them the right to use intoxicants privately, that does not mean that all MUST imbibe alcohol and smoke marijuana when at home. Accordingly, as We grant that our people, excepting those who are dangerous detriments to society and the public, have the right to live, we do not FORCE them to do so.

AB.IMP.CAES.GEKKO.MALLEVS.REX.ETVRIAE.IMP.LAT.SEMP.AVG


Second, for all those states that see the core tgo individual worth as the holding of rights, how can one defend self-termination? Keeping the matter totally secular, it would appear (at least in the eyes of the state) that death would equate with the total loss of all rights for the individual. Can the state, as a defender of individual rights, allow for the extinguishing of all rights, even if chosen? Similarly, if a person chose freely to become a slave, would that be acceptable? And if not, why is it different than accepting euthanasia?


We couldn't disagree more. To insist that because the right to live, the most important of personal rights, should be granted by the state, that the state must force the person to live, is ridiculous. Truly, the 'right to life' must necessarily include the right to either live or terminate one's own life. When We give Our people the right to congregate, We do not FORCE them to congregate.. they may never join any crowd at all if they so wish. When We give them the right to use intoxicants privately, that does not mean that all MUST imbibe alcohol and smoke marijuana when at home. Accordingly, as We grant that our people, excepting those who are dangerous detriments to society and the public, have the right to live, we do not FORCE them to do so.

A few points.

First, what a frightening concept - rights are "granted" by the State? They are not inherent in the human person, which the State must respect? That sounds strikingly authoritarian.

Second, I notice you haven't answered the question I asked. How is the state allowing individuals to choose euthanasia different from the state allowing individuals to choose becoming slaves? In both cases, the individual is using his/her "right" in a way that totally undermines the entire idea of rights, either by eliminating the ability to use rights (via death) or contracting them away (via slavery). Both euthanasia and slavery are opposed by their nature to the idea of inherent human rights. Unless, of course, you do believe that contracting one's self into slavery is acceptable. In that case, I would say you are at least consistent.

Third, this idea of "forcing" to live. Admittedly, there will always be those who kill themselves. But there is a vast difference between activities the state cannot prevent and activities the state give its blessing to. The state, in normal systems, has a monopoly on force (especially lethal force) except in self-defense, etc. Euthanasia removes this power from the state, allowing private citizens to kill. This seems problematic.

In any case, should a law regarding euthanasia, one way or another, the Royal Commonwealth will vote against it. This is a matter for each individual state, and not a decision the UN should make for all states.

With Respect,
Minister of Foreign Affairs Voegelin, Royal Commonwealth of Oakeshottland.

Second, I notice you haven't answered the question I asked. How is the state allowing individuals to choose euthanasia different from the state allowing individuals to choose becoming slaves? In both cases, the individual is using his/her "right" in a way that totally undermines the entire idea of rights, either by eliminating the ability to use rights (via death) or contracting them away (via slavery). Both euthanasia and slavery are opposed by their nature to the idea of inherent human rights. Unless, of course, you do believe that contracting one's self into slavery is acceptable. In that case, I would say you are at least consistent.


Individuals can sell themselves into slavery. The state may not respecct the contract should someone bring it to court, but they aren't going to stop it if they find out that someone chose to enslave themselves to someone else.

There's a different sort of treatment of a citizen which causes them to suffer for prolonger periods of time - it's called torture. Should that be left to each state to decide? This is a human rights issue, and should be treated as such.

Second, for all those states that see the core tgo individual worth as the holding of rights, how can one defend self-termination? Keeping the matter totally secular, it would appear (at least in the eyes of the state) that death would equate with the total loss of all rights for the individual. Can the state, as a defender of individual rights, allow for the extinguishing of all rights, even if chosen? Similarly, if a person chose freely to become a slave, would that be acceptable? And if not, why is it different than accepting euthanasia?

Euthanasia ends suffering. Slavery is suffering. Nuff said.

Yes God honors a person's free will but he expects you to use it correctly! He gave you as body and expects you to use it correctly. Everything God gave you he intended for good. Because God is perfect and all good and he would not wish you to do anything evil because that would be contradictory to God. And if God contadicts himself that would make hima liar. So by saying he is ok with us throwing our lives away then you are calling God a liar.

Not once did I say God is ok with us throwing our lives away. My point is simply that God respects a person's choice to stray away from him. He didn't stop Adam and Eve from eating the apple in the Garden of Eden. Why? Because he wanted us to have a free will, so that we can truly love him.

I believe one's decision to commit suicide grieves God's heart; you obviously didn't read my post very carefully. I am still VERY opposed to euthanasia. But if God created free will, the freedom to choose whether you will sin or not, who is the human to take it away?

I do like the most recent point made. I shall elaborate further, some domestic issues call.

Rad Kom
UN Ambassador
The Fiefdom of Baron Porkonia


yes but also we are told by God's laws to prevent others from sinning as much as we can within our power

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

yes but also we are told by God's laws to prevent others from sinning as much as we can within our power

No, you are told by God's laws to encourage others to not sin as much as you can within your power. Forcing others to not sin actually goes against god's laws, because he can't know if they would have succumbed to tempation had you not been there to stop them, so he cannot tell if they were good or not.

If you are going to use religion as a debate, you should really read your own bible.

yes but also we are told by God's laws to prevent others from sinning as much as we can within our power

Like Tisonica has mentioned, you might want to look carefully at that. God wants us to let people know the truth, he wants us to discourage sin, but he also says not to judge those, for by the measure that he judges, so shall he be judged.

Those fellow Christian brothers that keep sinning we are supposed to judge, but the non-Christians we are supposed to display God's love for them. Christ condemned many things; he drove the money changers and merchants out of the temple. So I do agree with you that we must do all we can to discourage such action, at the same time though, Jesus also hung around prositutues and the unclean. We cannot address the issue of euthanasia without truly understanding the people that wish to commit suicide. So that is why I suggested creating care groups, we will create awareness about the issue.

Oh Yes, and Vivelo, divorce is allowed in some nations, just to let you know. This is why I used this argument.

OOC: As of this post, I will be in character with my UN classification.

IC: Heeheehee, my playthings will follow my bidding! If my playthings fall out of line, then they will have to be discarded and replaced with better, more modern, and more easily controlled playthings. Heeheehee.

Baron Porkonia
Almighty Dictator of the Fiefdom of Baron Porkonia

We think the right to die doesn't exist. We've never heard of it in any legal system. So why are most people using it as an argument? first you've got to prove the right exists before you can use it to make your point. We don't see that anyone has. Please explain somebody why we have to accept the right to die as a basic human right.

We think the right to die doesn't exist. We've never heard of it in any legal system. So why are most people using it as an argument? first you've got to prove the right exists before you can use it to make your point. We don't see that anyone has. Please explain somebody why we have to accept the right to die as a basic human right.

I think to deny that something is a right, you have to prove that it isn't. We've already cited a right to manage one's own life as the heart of basic civil rights, and this thread is 4 pages of various arguments to that effect for various reasons. Now, tell us why it's not, besides your lack of knowledge of any precedent. You claim it's not a basic human right, now back it up. No one seems to have given any reasons that aren't religious, based in or disregarding minor details, or based in claims of prior illegality.

On that note, do give us the wording of the law against it. We've not heard it yet, despite nations such as yourself citing illegality as a given. Be specific, and we might give such an argument consideration. Previous illegality without valid reason is a hollow argument, indeed - there is a reason that countries have standing legislative bodies. If we accepted previous illegality as an end-all-be-all argument, a legislative body would only need to meet once when a country is founded, establish laws, bar any further changes, and disband. This is not how most free nations work. The legislative body is there to create and amend laws.

Its a true statement to say that I cannot force my opinions on anyone in this forum. I cannot make anyone have the same belief system as I. Therefore I will not try. Some may think I'm crazy and some may think I'm just plain ignorant or even stupid. There may even be a select few who would agree with me.

But I am a devout christian who seeks God's face everyday and looks to follow Jesus Christ every day. And not mine but God's word tells me that euthanasia is murder, whether it's chosen or forced upon. God didn't say that people should not suffer. Many christians suffer everyday. God is the creator and the author of life.
"He giveth and He taketh away."

Therefore it is with great respect to my Lord Jesus Christ that I shall NOT agree with euthanasia and if it were to ever come as a proposal I will vote AGAINST it!

I may be the only one that stands up for God on this subject, but I know I will have peace and joy with MY God!

Blessings to all.
Triprolo

If an individual wants to end his own life, that is his decision.

If an individual wants others to do it for him, then as long as all parties involved consent that is their decision.

Do I find it horrifying that someone would do this? Yes, of course. But it's still a private matter, and there is no valid reason to use the force of law to prevent them from engaging in such an act if they so desire.

If someone wants to die let them. It is not affecting anyone else , and is crueller to keep them alive.

People should be allowed to die if they wish to. you should not try and tell people how they should live their lives.

Ithuania: Ahh, a fellow socialist, I see.

Would you like to come join me in my democratic effort to make the world safe for a Socialist Workers' Paradise?

It's hard for you to make a decision like this based on religious beliefs for an entire country of people. You taking away their right to use this method of 'suicide' because of your own personal beliefs, is basically forcing your beliefs on someone else.

Do what is best for your nation, not what is best for you.

Suicide is legislated for in a way that those who servive are offered counsiling and given help and support in the areas that have lead to the attempt no punnish ment is afforded.

However Euthanisa is illigal in our nation. This is due to the complexity of the legal framework required to allow it. To be legal there has to be a definition as to what quality of life is considered low enough to merit death.

There are factors that can effect those who would be expected to make any decision about when that is reached. Family members my not be objective as their love of their relative may out way any rational judement made of the medical advice available and so request their relative live in the vain hope they will recover. Sad as it may be but there is the converse situation of an relative judgeing by their own economic interest that death is the best option. A living will is not sufficent, much of our population are not medical experts and any will they make cannot cover every eventuality, including the varity of levels recovery and corrisponding quality of life associated.

As already stated on this thread the act of euthanisa contredicts the hippocratic oath and as such doctors in our society could not be expected to make such judgements.

My main objection to euthanisa is not philosopical but a practical one. Who is qualified to decide on a case by case basis who should live or die, there is still too much medical uncertanty about death (more accurately how to define it in exact medical terms) to consider it at this time.

Philosopicaly i agree with the posistion that we all have the right to die, however i belive this is practicaly unworkable and open to abuse in m society.... although i would be interested to hear any suggestions any other nation may have.

My main objection to euthanisa is not philosopical but a practical one. Who is qualified to decide on a case by case basis who should live or die,

The individual who is going to die--as long as his consent is required, I see no problem.

In my experance many of the cases where euthinisa could be applied the subject is incapacitated and unavailable for concent.

I agree in prinicipal to eauthinisa. In a case where a rational person with an incurable degenrative desise who expresses a desire to be killed when they reach a certian point.. Fine.

My problem is that most of the cases will not be of that nature. In reality may will be unconcious and the decision will have to be made for them.

For example: an elderly man (67ish) has a heart attack at his home, his brain is without oxygen for a prolonged perioed of time befor the ambulance arrives. The ambulance crew then resusitate him using CPR. At hospital he regains consciousness but is mentaly impaired, or even due to stroke unable to communicate any wishes.

Some one other than him has to define (if eauthinisa is legal) weither he is case that requires such a death. Some one other than him has to assess his quality of life and recovery prospects... but to what criteria.. who decides that criteria.

As I said previously family members can be unreliable, doctors do not wish to make a decision and medicine itself is divided on tretment outcomes. Medicine is not a clean black and white scientific disaplin where every case is the same.

There is a coninum of human conditions from perfect function to death where do you draw the line? when is it euthinisa when murder when suicide.

I personaly find it sad to say but when legislateing laws the worst case situation must be taken into account.

OK, how about this--if he has a document stating his desire to die once he reaches a certain point (signed and notarized and all that), then he still consents, doesn't he?

His Most Enlightened One declares the Nation of the Arctic Banana's support for euthanasia, finding it necessary for both those who are beyond medical help, or in such pain that they willlingly request such a service, or to those who seek greater fortunes in the Great Beyond.


-Voice of His Most Enlightened One

I get your point. I also agree withit. But Laws have do deal with every situation. My point is what if he does NOT?

He does not know a heart attck is comming so may not have a living will. I understand your posistion, witch i agree with. My own Father has expressed his veiw on the subject and i am aware of his wishes and he is younger than 67 so in this case i would be satified i know what his wishes were. But these are not written down, why should anyone i tell belive me? He may have a large inheritance i want.

My point is that not everyone will have this concent what is to be done then?

You could make it compusory to have a living will but that would still not cover ever evetuality:

1. we are not medical experts (most of socity) our understanding of "different states of life" are limited. Even medical experts disagree on outcomes and life expectancy for different conditions. As i am young and healthy now i may say " i dont want to live as a vegtable." what if this did happen, but then i came to relise that i still could lead a life of sorts that i was happy with but could not communicate this.

2 At what age would this be compulsory? who make the decistions on those below that age? Car crashes can happen at any time to anyone.

3. Economicly it will be desireable for those who have no relatives dependants etc to be put to death in the event of an accident (caseing sevear diablity etc). But is this moraly right. "But MrsX wanted death at this point, so all people at this point must want death so we might as well do him whoe's going to know" We have strong finacal pressures on our health service.

Someone has to make a decision it cannot alway be the indervidual concerned.

1. we are not medical experts (most of socity) our understanding of "different states of life" are limited. Even medical experts disagree on outcomes and life expectancy for different conditions. As i am young and healthy now i may say " i dont want to live as a vegtable." what if this did happen, but then i came to relise that i still could lead a life of sorts that i was happy with but could not communicate this.

Of course, if the person is truly "living as a vegetable" (that is, have no mental activity), it would be impossible for them to be "happy" or "realize" anything. A thornier question is the fact that we cannot always tell when someone is truly in a vegetative state; this makes it harder for doctors to apply a living will. In these cases, they must use their best medical judgment--just as they must use their best medical judgment when ordering an amputation. It is true that mistakes, in this case, are tragic and disastrous (just as they are in the case of amputations). It is also true that not allowing such judgment is even worse. By maintainingstrict ethical and competence standards in the medical profession, we can minimize such misjudgments.

In response to your other points, let me quote my post from another thread:



We in Gurthark support euthenasia in the following cases...:

1. When the person to be killed is conscious, competent, and has requested death.

2. When the person is unconscious or incompetent and has created an explicit "living will" (created when competent) asking that they be killed under these circumstances.

3. When the person is unconscious or incompetent and has explicitly delegated power of attorney to someone to make this decision, and this person has requested that the patient be killed. A "living will," in either direction, can explicitly trump this power of attorney in any or every situation--the power of attorney applies if the living will either does not exist or does not cover the patient's specific situation.

4. If the patient is a minor, both the parents and a board of ethicists appointed by the state must agree for the patient's life to be terminated. If the minor is conscious and wishes to live, the board of ethics *must* not permit euthanasia; they are given latitude to use their own judgment in other cases. If there is any disagreement between the parents or among the board, euthenasia must not be performed.

5. If the patient is married (in Gurthark, any number of competent adults can enter into a marriage, regardless of gender), that person's spouse(s) have *prima facie* power of attorney as in 3. If there is more than one spouse, they must all agree for the euthenasia to take place. A person can, when competent, explicitly *deny* one or more of his/her spouses such power of attorney, in writing--that is, the power of attorney applies if no documentation denying it can be found.

This is a thorny subject, of course. We believe that the above conditions present a reasonable compromise between preserving the right to die with dignity and preventing abuse of euthenasia by doctors, relatives, or others.


Note that, in particular, a person with no relatives who has not left a living will or delgated power of attorney and is incapable of saying what they want *cannot* be euthenized in Gurthark.

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

I've noticed that the argument often used is that it would be more fiscally responsible to our healthcare system to get rid of them. Anyone that argues euthanasia from that point, in my opinion, is ratifying it for personal gain not any concern for the one who wishes to commit suicide.

EDIT-- Oh and Anbar, this is not a court of law. The burden of proof does not exist. It is the responsibility of BOTH sides to try to explain, reason, or rationalize their presuppositions and arguments as best as possible.

I've previously raised this but regrettably attached a personal issue which may have made it difficult for some people to address. However, I'd be grateful if someone could tell me how Euthanasia is all that different from existing medical practices such as:

"Do not resuscitate" orders. If a person does not wish to be resuscitated, and has made it clear, it's illegal (in the UK) to resuscitate them.

Refusal of blood transfusion. Patients may refuse to have a blood transfusion administered even at risk of their own life. This decision by the patient is often based on religious principles.

High doses of morphine. Patients with terminal and highly painful diseases may be given doses of morphine which will very likely shorten their lives, if those doses are necessary to quell the pain.

Gurthark.

When i said that " As i am young and healthy now i may say " i dont want to live as a vegetable." It was as much to highlight the fact that the term "Vegetable" is misunderstood or at least misused by lay people as it was to make my first point. For some one who is say severely retarded through a accident, my point still holds. what if in this state i am happy, although i anticipated i would not be and signed a living will that sanctions my death. This seams to me too higher risk to take, and moreover too higher risk for anyone else to be allowed to take.

Of course in a truly vegetative state there is no brain function and as such any realization of any kind is impossible. I would be happier with a reclassification of death, define it not as lack of brain stem function, but as permanent loss of conscious activity. But there is a difference between a vegetative state (one that IS recoverable) and a permanent vegetative state (PVS). This is as you said the difficulty; it is impossible to tell which is which by external means such as the Glasgow coma scale. The difference between the two states is time. In England the VS is considered permanent after a year or 6 months for children (their brains recover from trauma faster). However some have recovered after longer but this probability is very low.

I would agree for degenerative disease there can be a point at which you would wish to end it all they will only get worse in suffering. However in the case of permanent disability this is not so. Although the medical community are well placed and trained to make difficult life or death decisions (such as amputation) I not sure if they would accept the burden of even creating a criteria of who will live or die. They are amputating (to use this example) in the best interests of the patient. But in my above example given that naturally the person may life a long life, although disabled, with only the most basic medical care they would be not be acting in the best interest of anyone.

The main body of your points 1-5 i agree with and are offer a good framework from which to work within: However only for degenerative disease.





I'd be grateful if someone could tell me how Euthanasia is all that different from existing medical practices such as:

"Do not resuscitate" orders. If a person does not wish to be resuscitated, and has made it clear, it's illegal (in the UK) to resuscitate them.

Refusal of blood transfusion. Patients may refuse to have a blood transfusion administered even at risk of their own life. This decision by the patient is often based on religious principles.

High doses of morphine. Patients with terminal and highly painful diseases may be given doses of morphine which will very likely shorten their lives, if those doses are necessary to quell the pain.


I am no expert but this is my understanding (UK).

DNR orders. This a example of a non-action. No one can force you to live. However they die own their own naturally, they have not been acted upon to hasten or facilitate their death (important legal distinction). The same with a blood transfusion.

The morphine .... you got me there that is euthanasia. It has been tested in the courts and to my knowledge the ruleing was that the primary function of palliative care is pain relief.

Your right there is no real moral distiction they are just legal ones. I agree in principal to the practice of euthanasia, however only voluntary and defined in such a way as to ensure no possibility of the classic slippery slope argument becoming true.

Thank you Englund.

Now, these practically-Euthanasia policies are already in effect, and have been so for some time. Could someone tell me how the slope could get suddenly slippery when we take the small step of positively legalising the assisted suicide of those who have a degenerative or agonising fatal condition? (Please refrain from fantastically original quips like "I thought that was just life".)

I do not believe that the slippery slope had anything to do with patients with degenerative diseases. The slippery slope comes in with those that do not have a degenerative disease. Euthanasia is very similar in nature to pulling the plug and if euthanasia, a suicide that occurs because of consent, is legalized, then eventually a legislation that decides when the plug should be pulled will be created.

Now, I agree that there is a certain point upon which the person should no longer drain the medical resources of the hospital any longer, but the whole argument has now evolved to this: how do we regulate who is in a permanent vegatative state and who is not?

Rad Kom
UN Ambassador
The Fiefdom of Baron Porkonia

EDIT-- Oh and Anbar, this is not a court of law. The burden of proof does not exist. It is the responsibility of BOTH sides to try to explain, reason, or rationalize their presuppositions and arguments as best as possible.

Regardless of the forum, if you are going to try to cast doubt on someone's point, it falls to you to provide reason to doubt it, not to others to defend against a non-specific claim.

The person I was responding to asked for reasons why the right to die was a basic human right. I responded that the person ought to go back and read the 4 pages of philosophical debate that had been discussed, and actually offer reasons themselves why it wouldn't be. At that time, that person had only offered reasons such as their opinion that they found euthanasia unpleasant and some religious reasons, as I recall. Thus, my statement was for them to present some valid reason rather than having others restate theirs for about the third time with no real points to counter.

Now, these practically-Euthanasia policies are already in effect, and have been so for some time. Could someone tell me how the slope could get suddenly slippery when we take the small step of positively legalising the assisted suicide of those who have a degenerative or agonising fatal condition?

I would question if this were a satisfactory definition. In legalising it in this way patients with PVS (persistent vegetative state) would not qualify for an assisted death as the condition is not degenerative or agonising but it would be considered, by many, to warrant an assisted death. That said I would support any legislation that legalised euthanasia but ONLY if this specifically referred to degenerative disease or agonising fatal conditions. I doubt the slope would get slippery that quickly although I do believe it is a legitimate concern that it could happen at all and should be considered when legislating so at the very least it can be legislated against.

My concern is for those conditions that are not degenerative but steady state.

If a person has a living will that states they would not want to live in the event they were severely disabled , (physically and/or mentally) and were aided in the pursuit of that death that could be considered a mercy killing, euthanasia. In that they said they did not want to live in such a state and to those who are not disabled that may consider that reasonable and an act of mercy. Even though that person may live at that same level for many more years.

By allowing such an act the state is endorsing the opinion that disabled people in general are less valuable to that society. As those who are born with severe disability may not be considered as worthwhile and in our capitalist culture receive less funding for basic care (although even without an economic view point the damage to society is reason enough). I would assume there would be strong opposition from many disability groups.

If you do not allow this situation to be legalised as euthanasia then you could be accused of restricting the rights of someone, given that that they have a will detailing their wishes and you have agreed in principal to someone having the right to die if they choose.

It is important that the examples you mentioned are "practically-Euthanasia" they are not however not actually or legally Euthanasia. As I have said i am not against in principal but these are on the edge of our (UK im assuming) legal system, but by moving them into it, the edge moves further away. There is a difference between an act and an omission and it is this fine legal line that is being walked. To cross it opens up many more problems, to act to kill someone deliberately is murder by definition*. (i shall await being proved wrong there i havent looked that up!)

Ok. Let's get this straight.

Neither the government nor anybody else for this matter should have control over another persons PRIVATE PROPERTY, like it says in the Constitution. Therefore, isn't a person's body their PRIVATE PROPERTY?

Why should a person not be able to smoke or drink or eat whatever they want or kill themselves for that matter. Ok... If someone kills themself, how is it REALLY going to affect the world?

If someone smokes pot, how is it going to hurt the person next to them?

Leave our bodies alone, let us do what we want with them.

They are ours.