NationStates Jolt Archive

I read with interest some of the posts on the euthanasia thread and came to an interesting conclusion. As you may know, in some countries, one can draw up a legal power of attorney and a living will that gives a relative, friend, or lawyer the right to make medical decisions on your behalf, per your wishes, if you become incapacitated. One example of this is a Do-Not-Resussitate (DNR) order that prevents medical personnel from putting you on a ventilator or trying to resussitate you if you lose your pulse. If I drew up a legal power of attorney saying that if I fell into a coma that lasted more than 3 months or was sufferring from an n-stage terminal illness, I want a doctor to give me more than enough morphine to end my life, should my request be executed?

This is, in effect, identical to the euthenasia question--since nobody here is advocating *involuntary* euthenasia, this or something much like it is the only case that is under debate.

We in Gurthark support euthenasia in the following cases, which include your case:

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.

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

This is, in effect, identical to the euthenasia question--since nobody here is advocating *involuntary* euthenasia, this or something much like it is the only case that is under debate.

I agree that it is similar to the current euthanasia debate, but I intended the question for those nations that do not allow euthanasia or assisted suicide but that allow the medical establishment to kill a patient passively, if he wishes, either by starvation or by "pulling the plug." I suppose it's more of a broader question, really, because it questions the right of a person to commit suicide at all.