NationStates Jolt Archive

Clearly the old proposal was not detailed enough so I have made the new one as detailed as I possibly could. I have considered all of your points in the last post and I would be grateful if you were to read it (page 16) and vote if you agree because it closes in three days :? :)

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.
*

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Grande

Description: A child was sat at his mother's bedside when she was unable to breathe for herself and was under constant care. All the child knew was that the dignity of this once strong woman was slowly being drained away, hour by hour, day by day. The child's mother once told him that if she were ever in this situation, that he should do the right thing and put her out of her misery. He decided that he would obey his mother's wishes, and was jailed for 'killing' his mother.

I ask you where is the justice in this? That someone has no right to end suffering?

I propose that euthanasia should be legalised. Everyone over a certain age or with a life-threatening illness should be given the right to decide whether, in such a situation, they want to live on for as long as possible, or die with a little dignity left intact. This would mean a legal document would be filled out by those concerned. This would ensure that it is not a medical decision, but the patient's choice. After this document is signed, it must only be used in the situations stated.

In the case of a freak situation in which a person has no serious illness or is over a certain age, if the person cannot make the decision themselves it would be made by those closest to them on the basis of professional advice.
Also if the patient is in a coma, 5-10 years should be waited until those closest to them make a decision.

The act also must be carried out in the most painless way possible.

Why should carers use up time on those certain to die, when this time could be spent with those with a chance of life?

And for those using religion as a barrier, don't you think that whoever you believe in would rather see the person happy in paradise, rather than suffering?

Please think about this proposal carefully, and consider which path you would take if you were ever to be in this situation (God forbid)?

Approvals: 0

Status: Lacking Support (requires 137 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Wed Jan 7 2004

Sadaway would like to ask above what age? and What is to stop someone who just had "a bad day" or somthing to kill themslves? Sadaway will remain neutral

The age would have to be another issue decided on but say 50 years old? If someone who had had a bad day killed themselves this would have nothing to do with euthanasia and would be suicide, as in the proposal it is stated that the legal document may only be used in the stated situations.

So if you have a crippling terminal disease but you're 42, say, you can't choose to die? This is how it should go:

Any person over the age of majority in his/her nation may make and sign a legal document to say that under certain specified conditions, such as paralysis, s/he is to be killed in the most humane way possible. If an adult patient with an illness like this expresses his or her wish to die, and it is decided by a majority of 3 doctors that s/he is in a sane state of mind, able to make such a decision, that wish should be respected.


Leave anything else more contraversial, such as others being able to decide for them, to another proposal, as otherwise this won't pass.

Clearly the old proposal was not detailed enough so I have made the new one as detailed as I possibly could. I have considered all of your points in the last post and I would be grateful if you were to read it (page 16) and vote if you agree because it closes in three days :? :)

Well it seems to say, all I need to kill a disabled person is to bribe a psychiatrist :)

I was with you until the line "In the case of a freak situation in which a person has no serious illness or is over a certain age, if the person cannot make the decision themselves it would be made by those closest to them". That lost it, I'm afraid - too many ways that could be abused.

SC

Catholic Europe is vehemently against this proposal.

To us, euthanasia is murder. We have no right to decide when people, who have an illness, die. We should not and have no right to play God in these matters. Ending of life, prematurely, is totally wrong in all but a few cases. Euthanasia is certainely not one of these cases.

Catholic Europe is vehemently against this proposal.

To us, euthanasia is murder. We have no right to decide when people, who have an illness, die. We should not and have no right to play God in these matters. Ending of life, prematurely, is totally wrong in all but a few cases. Euthanasia is certainely not one of these cases.

We appreciate the improvements in this proposal. Now the rights of individual self-determination are more clearly protected and the chances of family interference are limited.

It might be good to change the word "professional" to "medical doctor", to prevent someone from using the advice of their accountant or astrologer.

I was with you until the line "In the case of a freak situation in which a person has no serious illness or is over a certain age, if the person cannot make the decision themselves it would be made by those closest to them". That lost it, I'm afraid - too many ways that could be abused.

SC

I agree. See my suggestions above.

This proposal has too many grey areas for me so i would not support it :cry:

Xawadiland approves this proposal, but it's meaningless. Too many approvals are needed, so no resolutions get passed any more.

So if you have a crippling terminal disease but you're 42, say, you can't choose to die?

If you would care to read the proposal properly you would see that it is stated that 'anyone over a certain age or with a life-threatening illness should be given the right to decide'. :roll:

If you would care to read the proposal properly you would see that it is stated that 'anyone over a certain age or with a life-threatening illness should be given the right to decide'. :roll:

There was the query:
Sadaway would like to ask above what age?

You replied to the query:
The age would have to be another issue decided on but say 50 years old?

And my post was in response to this. Anyway, why have the age ambiguous? You need to specify as much as possible in proposals - so either say an age, or say that each country can choose (which is dodgy since conservative nations could just set the age at 1000 so that the laws didn't apply to anyone) or, as I suggested above, set it to the age at which each nation considers its citizens adult, because if they can be trusted with adult rights and responsibilities, surely they should be able to choose what happens to their own lives?

It is a sad day when people try to impose beliefs upon a religious nation through an international body. Euthenasia is murder. MAN DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO KILL MAN!

It is a sad day when people try to impose beliefs upon a religious nation through an international body. Euthenasia is murder. MAN DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO KILL MAN!

All opinions welcome! The proposal finishes tomorrow so if you agree please vote :-)

All opinions welcome! The proposal finishes tomorrow so if you agree please vote :-)

Yes it is now the first proposal on the first page and requires votes before it closes tonight so please vote :-)

Yes it is now the first proposal on the first page and requires votes before it closes tonight so please vote :-)

It is a sad day when people try to impose beliefs upon a religious nation through an international body. Euthenasia is murder. MAN DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO KILL MAN!

Catholic Europe totally agrees with this stand. The UN should be there to protect the rights of the people of its member states not enforce laws which could actually endanger their lives by legalising murder.

I was with you until the line "In the case of a freak situation in which a person has no serious illness or is over a certain age, if the person cannot make the decision themselves it would be made by those closest to them". That lost it, I'm afraid - too many ways that could be abused.

SC
I agree with this

The proposal is still far to unclear. In some nations this could be abused to the extent of legalising Compulsory Euthenasia. The proposal needs to be re-worded to include clear statements about keeping complusory euthenasia illegal.

I agree with this

The proposal is still far to unclear. In some nations this could be abused to the extent of legalising Compulsory Euthenasia. The proposal needs to be re-worded to include clear statements about keeping complusory euthenasia illegal.

But why should we legalise Euthanasia in the first place?

Euthanasia in murder and if we legalise it what is to stop people from legalising other forms of murder?!

Euthanasia isn't murder, just as suicide isn't.
We do it to animals all the time without a second thought, and we dont even ask them.
People have the intelligence to make the decision wether to live or not, and if they choose not to live, this decision must be respected.

Nibbleton

P.S.
Before you all say "humans aren't animals," they are. We weren't "created" this way, we evolved our sentience. If this weren't the case, find a better reason why we share 99% of our genes with apes.

It is a sad day when people try to impose beliefs upon a religious nation through an international body. Euthenasia is murder. MAN DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO KILL MAN!

It is a sad day when religious people try to impose beliefs on a population through government. I do dislike this proposal because of its ambiguity, and the fact that it allows involuntary euthanasia (i.e. when the patient hasn't either given prior consent or made a request to die during an illness, which is simply wrong because it goes against the basic principle of personal choice which justifies voluntary euthanasia). However, any attempt to legalise voluntary euthanasia with a well-thought out, specific proposal will only be an attempt to give those of your citizens who do not agree with the majority's catholic beliefs basic freedoms which you have denied them.

Please try and justify to me why we should not allow each individual to choose to die when he or she wants.

It is a sad day when religious people try to impose beliefs on a population through government.

It is a sad day when non-religious people try to impose their beliefs against religion on a population through government. :x

It is a sad day when religious people try to impose beliefs on a population through government.

It is a sad day when non-religious people try to impose their beliefs against religion on a population through government. :x

I am sorry to keep posting but i have had a wave of people telegramming me to promote this proposal before it closes, and it will close very very soon. There are still quite a few votes needed before then but it is pheasible.

Please :?

It is a sad day when religious people try to impose beliefs on a population through government.

It is a sad day when non-religious people try to impose their beliefs against religion on a population through government. :x

Giving people the choice to die does not inflict on the freedoms of religious people. Religious people are free not to request death if euthanasia is legal. This does not harm religion or religious people, it merely disagrees with it. And if religion is against giving people control over their own bodies, then the rest of us have a right and perhaps even a duty to work for such freedoms against the opinions of the religious.

We appreciate the improvements in this proposal. Now the rights of individual self-determination are more clearly protected and the chances of family interference are limited.

It might be good to change the word "professional" to "medical doctor", to prevent someone from using the advice of their accountant or astrologer.

It might also be wise to add "medical doctor in good standing," there are a lot of bad docs out there not in good standing with the AMA etc...

It is a sad day when religious people try to impose beliefs on a population through government.

It is a sad day when non-religious people try to impose their beliefs against religion on a population through government. :x

Giving people the choice to die does not inflict on the freedoms of religious people. Religious people are free not to request death if euthanasia is legal. This does not harm religion or religious people, it merely disagrees with it. And if religion is against giving people control over their own bodies, then the rest of us have a right and perhaps even a duty to work for such freedoms against the opinions of the religious.

Exactly. In addition, a doctor could not be forced to euthanize a patient if it was against his or her beliefs. If within a religious community a group of people decided to not to support Euthenasia, this proposal would not affect that. However, it allows non-religious people and those whose religions allow them to make their own choices about Euthanasia free to choose, which they have the right to do.

Has been submitted for the third and final time - read other post!

Has been submitted for the third and final time - read other post!

I still cannot ask my delegate to support this and will vote against it if it comes to the UN floor. You have ignored the many suggestions for improvement made by the pro-euthanasia arguers in this thread and as far as i can see you have submitted the same proposal. The ages are still left vague and suggest that this right should only be given to the elderly, and involuntary euthanasia is still included.

I have put together a better euthanasia proposal for anyone who is interested - look here http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=112865&highlight= - and I'm waiting for feedback before I submit it.

We would have to say it depends on the religious beliefs of a person.

for example in the islamic teachings, it is said that God gives the will power and endurance to the human till the day he or she dies.. since this is promised, surely they may have second thoughts. Not only that, the government can "warn" the person or notify that what he/she is doing is going against his/her beliefs and thus it is their fault for choosing such a fate. Thats why i chose Euthenasia as legal since it is entirely their choice not the government's or clergy's and if they want to do it then let them do it...

Grande, are you a complete idiot, or are you just plain arrogant? :evil:

The last time you put this on the statute books you caused the deaths of over 100 million people.

You still use a sham of pathetic prose to present your proposal, you have closed none of the loopholes that allow genocide, and you are still trying to play GOD

Just leave it

Give it up, Go away, and quit bothering the nice people :roll:

Uh, I think Islamic Utopia resurrected this thread. Perhaps it should have been allowed to die a natural death?

Er... Thanx Ecopoeia, I think that makes us one-all now :oops: