NationStates Jolt Archive

This proposal has had so much interest that I have been bombarded with people's telegrams urging me to submit it one more time. The first time it got about 60 votes, the second about 100, it is obvious that more and more people are becoming aware of it. This will be the final time it is submitted and indeed has been and is on page 24 after it just missed out on becoming a resolution yesterday. Please please please vote if you agree and don't let the opportunity pass. Thankyou in advance :)

This is the proposal:

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 medical 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)?

Here we go:

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.

1) What age? Define the age.
2) Define "life-threatening" illness. Any illness that threatens their life (like the flu), or only illnesses that are guaranteed to kill the patient? How much certainty of death must we have? How many doctors are to be consulted?

This would mean a legal document would be filled out by those concerned.

1) Who is "those concerned?"
2) What is the legal document?

This would ensure that it is not a medical decision, but the patient's choice.

I'm starting to get the impression that this would be done in the same way that the back of a driver's license in the United States has a little form for indicating that you want to be an organ donor: you fill out the document beforehand and then if the situation arises, you would be euthanized. This has a few problems:

1) What if you change your mind while on your death bed but are unable to communicate this?
2) Who determines if this is a "life-threatening illness" if this is not a medical decision? Doesn't this place the decision in the hands of the next-of-kin?

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 medical advice.

1) Wait, what? Why would we euthanize if you aren't going to die and you're not really all that old? Define this.
2) Define "closest to them." Legal next-of-kin? Best friend? Coworker?
3) This clause opens up the floodgates to involuntary euthanasia with malicious intent. In simpler terms: the next-of-kin, seeing the opportunity to legally kill his wealthy father without known specific consent from the father and inherit all of his estate, authorizes euthanasia despite opposition from doctors. Remember, this is not a "medical decision" and it is only on the "basis of medical advice."

Also if the patient is in a coma, 5-10 years should be waited until those closest to them make a decision.

Five or ten?

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

Because death is not, nor has it ever been, part of the medical profession, merely the preservation of life. A doctor is not a bringer of the end. If a doctor is to have any role in the death of a patient, that role should be to make the patient's natural time left in this world as painless as possible; a doctor should never kill a patient.

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?

Many of the world's religions consider suicide to be sinful or against the wishes of the Divine. It is not the place of the United Nations to deem that belief invalid.

Conclusion: It is not that the people of Salliston do not respect the right of an individual to die; we hold that right as dearly as we hold the right to live. But this proposal offers too many poor definitions, incomplete arguments, and legal loopholes for Salliston to approve in good conscience. This flimsy proposal should not be voted into international law.

Wow Salliston! thats real UN work right there


:arrow: The single most problematic problem of this resolution is that it does not distinguish between or awknowledge that there are two types of euthanasea: passive and agressive.

:arrow: As a Roman Catholic territory, the Dictators could conceivably awknowledge a Passive Euthanasea, but not an Agressive one. We could also awknowledge a case where a patient refuses treatment. What is the difference??

:idea: Passive Euthanasea: This would be the brain dead case- the person is being kept alive by machines and so forth. Or comotose. Basically, the person is not coming back and would otherwise be dead if it were not for modern technology. Removing ventilators/ feeding tubes (unsure about that one) and other things that are keeping the person alive is passive euthanasea and may be turned to if it is a person's time to die. A person's time to die may be like...a 90 year old guy with cancer on a ventilator- hes lived a good long life and there isn't a lot more he is going to do. Or possibly a young person that is in the same situation. But this is strictly a decision to be made by the immediate family. Immediate family being husband/wife, mom/dad, brother/sister, and children and any extended family member the person in question was close to. If the family cannon reach a consensus, then the person shall remain on the machines.

:idea: Active/Agressive Euthanasea: This is where a person, a person's family or a doctor or anyone decides to take poison/medical cocktail or whatever to end a person's life at any stage of illness. This is unacceptable in any case and under any condition to the Wanna-Bee Dictators. This case refers to the 90 year old lady who has cancer and decides to have some poison (because thats what that lethal injection stuff is).

:idea: Refusing Treatment: This is also an option. A person can decide not to take any drugs or medication that may help in fighting a disease. If they feel thier life is up then they dont have to do anything to prolong it. This is the case of that doctor on ER who decided to refuse treatment for brain cancer a few years ago.

:?: How is Passive Euthanasea/Refusing Treatment different than Active Euthanasea? : It is different because in Passive/Refusing Treatment you are not actually killing yourself or having someone else killed- youre just letting the ball out of your court and seeing what happens. You awknowledge that this issue is out of your hands and commend yourself to whatever God or force of nature you believe in.


:!: Now for the religious issue. As a Catholic nation, the Territory of the Current Dictator would say that anyone who commits active euthanasea against themselves or against another is unmistakably going to hell. Unless, of course, the person goes to confession and is heartfully sorry for their actions. Also, a person who commits active euthanasea against themself is not fit for a proper Catholic burial, because, after all, it is still suicide since suicide can be for any reason and at any time-including late in life and in sickness. So, in commiting active euthanasea one may be hurting your family some more because everyone in the Disputed territories is very Catholic.

:arrow: The Current Dictator would like to remind everyone that there is no indignity in death even if you are wasting away. There is only indignity if someone is left alone on the street to die because it shows that the members of society aren't taking their duties to a neighbor into consideration. A dignified death, regardles of your state or condition, involves a quiet humility and a happy eye in celebration for the life lived and the world around.

Cheers,
The Current Dictator

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 medical advice.So If a party with Nazi-style beliefs is in power and most of the doctors are strong supporters of the party, they could have anyone over a certain age or of a certain race could be forced to be euthanised even though they arent ill?
Compulsory euthenasia is wrong.
This proposal is too easy to be abused.

Nibbleton

Ahem,

I don't know if anyone else noticed this as I only glanced at the other posts, but is there not already an normal "in game" issue which deals with this subject? I don't see why we need a U.N. proposal to deal with it when individual countries are already dealing with it in their own fashion.

Edit = (Don't get me wrong, I am pro choice for this, its just I don't think this proposal is as well written as it could be, but hey, thats already been pointed out, I am just saying, why here? Its already been pretty much delt with via issues, so yeah, in summing up, I am not against the idea, simply that its been brought up here despite the fact its already been delt with, in a fashion)

A Rep of Komokom.

All of these problems had been pointed out, often by pro-choice people, in this thread: http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=111512&highlight=

However, the author chose to ignore them and simply re-submitted the same, problem-ridden proposal again. As such, I have put together a rival proposal which is more specific and doesn't force governments to accept involuntary euthanasia. I won't submit it yet, I want feedback to improve it, so if you could look at it here: http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=2551768#2551768

Hey it only need 48 more approvals! If its gets them by about 12 noon tomorrow it will become aresolution. Thankyou all for voting but dont stop now!

I feel strongly that people should have the right to die the way that they want, that is with dignity.
We put so much effort in medicine and cures and the like that we forget that these people are spending the last days of their lives surrounded by strangers eating disgusting food and lets not forget in constant pain.
Now when it comes to people in comas, there are situations in which it is legal to pull the plug.
Last February a very dear friend of mine and my mother's had surgery, that, if succesful, would have relieved her from a great deal of pain that she had been living with every day. In short, she would have gotten a chance at a normal life again. She knew, however, that this surgery had a 5% failure rate.
So she wrote a will.
A few hours after the surgery complications set in.
The next day she was pronounced braindead.
She had left written and verbal instructions professing her desire NOT to be a vegetable.
And she gave my mother the authority to choose to pull the plug.
So you can see why I feel strongly about this issue. To say that it is wrong would essentially call my mother a murderer and I would strongly resent that. Just thinking about this issue is making me depressed...So I'm going to log off and do something else. :( :cry: :x :evil: :?

If this proposal reaches the table as a resolution, I will vote against it. Stating my reasons in full would simply be a redundancy thanks to other, more well-spoken leaders have said, but I do have an objection that has not yet been pointed out, not to the proposal itself so much as to its method of statement. Rather than the detached professionalism that should accompany a UN proposal, allowing each delegate to weigh the matter and decide logically, the proposer has elected for a "touching story" method, attempting to sway readers to their point of view with an emotionally presented example of a singular case. To this, I object, and I will say of those who allowed this silly device to sway them that I look upon them as less for it.

If you believe life is precious it may seem logical to oppose this proposal.

However, if you have seen lives ended in long drawn-out suffering which no anodyne can aelleviate, you have realized that the value of this life is more affirmed by ending it tham ny prolonging it under such circumstances.

I was going to vote for, but my region founder brought up a good point:
There are individual issues per country for a reason.

dp

dp

If you believe life is precious it may seem logical to oppose this proposal.

However, if you have seen lives ended in long drawn-out suffering which no anodyne can aelleviate, you have realized that the value of this life is more affirmed by ending it tham ny prolonging it under such circumstances.

Unless, that is, you see this value of life as implying that it is not the place of the people to make the decision to end it, as is often the case.

This proposal is dangerous in more ways than just in regards to human rights. If then UN can make the demand that each nation legalizes euthanasia, what makes the UN stop there?

Here are the reasons those of you who have not voted need to vote against it, and why those of you who have voted for the proposal need to reconsider:

1.) This makes demands upon religious nations to legalize a practice that they do not believe in.

2.) It is not the place of the UN to govern internal affairs of each nation, when it comes to issues of this nature.

3.) This is a violation of the sovergnty of all UN members. If the UN gains enough clout to force this through, what comes next?

4.) This would allow for a great amount of malpractice in the medical community, even abuse. Euthanasia could become yet another cash cow. Can you imagine having Euthanasia clinics? That is a frightening concept, but if this is passed it will become all too likely.

5.) It is not entirely clear to me why this is even an issue that the UN should be concerned with. Aren't there more important things for the UN to be debating?


This must not pass. It is not the place of man to play God. Death comes to those whose time has come. Doctors should only be involved in prolonging life, not ending it. Mercy killing? That sounds like an oxymoron.

This proposal is dangerous in more ways than just in regards to human rights. If then UN can make the demand that each nation legalizes euthanasia, what makes the UN stop there?

Here are the reasons those of you who have not voted need to vote against it, and why those of you who have voted for the proposal need to reconsider:

1.) This makes demands upon religious nations to legalize a practice that they do not believe in.

2.) It is not the place of the UN to govern internal affairs of each nation, when it comes to issues of this nature.

3.) This is a violation of the sovergnty of all UN members. If the UN gains enough clout to force this through, what comes next?

4.) This would allow for a great amount of malpractice in the medical community, even abuse. Euthanasia could become yet another cash cow. Can you imagine having Euthanasia clinics? That is a frightening concept, but if this is passed it will become all too likely.

5.) It is not entirely clear to me why this is even an issue that the UN should be concerned with. Aren't there more important things for the UN to be debating?


This must not pass. It is not the place of man to play God. Death comes to those whose time has come. Doctors should only be involved in prolonging life, not ending it. Mercy killing? That sounds like an oxymoron.

This proposal is dangerous in more ways than just in regards to human rights. If then UN can make the demand that each nation legalizes euthanasia, what makes the UN stop there?

Here are the reasons those of you who have not voted need to vote against it, and why those of you who have voted for the proposal need to reconsider:

1.) This makes demands upon religious nations to legalize a practice that they do not believe in.

2.) It is not the place of the UN to govern internal affairs of each nation, when it comes to issues of this nature.

3.) This is a violation of the sovergnty of all UN members. If the UN gains enough clout to force this through, what comes next?

4.) This would allow for a great amount of malpractice in the medical community, even abuse. Euthanasia could become yet another cash cow. Can you imagine having Euthanasia clinics? That is a frightening concept, but if this is passed it will become all too likely.

5.) It is not entirely clear to me why this is even an issue that the UN should be concerned with. Aren't there more important things for the UN to be debating?


This must not pass. It is not the place of man to play God. Death comes to those whose time has come. Doctors should only be involved in prolonging life, not ending it. Mercy killing? That sounds like an oxymoron.

This proposal is dangerous in more ways than just in regards to human rights. If then UN can make the demand that each nation legalizes euthanasia, what makes the UN stop there?

Here are the reasons those of you who have not voted need to vote against it, and why those of you who have voted for the proposal need to reconsider:

1.) This makes demands upon religious nations to legalize a practice that they do not believe in.

2.) It is not the place of the UN to govern internal affairs of each nation, when it comes to issues of this nature.

3.) This is a violation of the sovergnty of all UN members. If the UN gains enough clout to force this through, what comes next?

4.) This would allow for a great amount of malpractice in the medical community, even abuse. Euthanasia could become yet another cash cow. Can you imagine having Euthanasia clinics? That is a frightening concept, but if this is passed it will become all too likely.

5.) It is not entirely clear to me why this is even an issue that the UN should be concerned with. Aren't there more important things for the UN to be debating?


This must not pass. It is not the place of man to play God. Death comes to those whose time has come. Doctors should only be involved in prolonging life, not ending it. Mercy killing? That sounds like an oxymoron.

This proposal is dangerous in more ways than just in regards to human rights. If then UN can make the demand that each nation legalizes euthanasia, what makes the UN stop there?

Here are the reasons those of you who have not voted need to vote against it, and why those of you who have voted for the proposal need to reconsider:

1.) This makes demands upon religious nations to legalize a practice that they do not believe in.

2.) It is not the place of the UN to govern internal affairs of each nation, when it comes to issues of this nature.

3.) This is a violation of the sovergnty of all UN members. If the UN gains enough clout to force this through, what comes next?

4.) This would allow for a great amount of malpractice in the medical community, even abuse. Euthanasia could become yet another cash cow. Can you imagine having Euthanasia clinics? That is a frightening concept, but if this is passed it will become all too likely.

5.) It is not entirely clear to me why this is even an issue that the UN should be concerned with. Aren't there more important things for the UN to be debating?


This must not pass. It is not the place of man to play God. Death comes to those whose time has come. Doctors should only be involved in prolonging life, not ending it. Mercy killing? That sounds like an oxymoron.

personally im pro-choice about it. i personally im pro choice on the euthnasia thing. i think if the law outlined clear thingummys to determain it aint abused then i think it might work. anyway the whole UN thing..well if people think it right then they'll vote. if you dont like it dont join the UN or leave it

hey sorry about all the multiple posts, my web browser is all screwed up. and how i will rectify the situation

hey sorry about all the multiple posts, my web browser is all screwed up. and how i will rectify the situation

This proposal is dangerous in more ways than just in regards to human rights. If then UN can make the demand that each nation legalizes euthanasia, what makes the UN stop there?

Here are the reasons those of you who have not voted need to vote against it, and why those of you who have voted for the proposal need to reconsider:

1.) This makes demands upon religious nations to legalize a practice that they do not believe in.

2.) It is not the place of the UN to govern internal affairs of each nation, when it comes to issues of this nature.

3.) This is a violation of the sovergnty of all UN members. If the UN gains enough clout to force this through, what comes next?

4.) This would allow for a great amount of malpractice in the medical community, even abuse. Euthanasia could become yet another cash cow. Can you imagine having Euthanasia clinics? That is a frightening concept, but if this is passed it will become all too likely.

5.) It is not entirely clear to me why this is even an issue that the UN should be concerned with. Aren't there more important things for the UN to be debating?


This must not pass. It is not the place of man to play God. Death comes to those whose time has come. Doctors should only be involved in prolonging life, not ending it. Mercy killing? That sounds like an oxymoron.

National sovereignity is irrelevant. Only individuals are sovereign. If a nation is violating individual rights, the UN has a right to setp in.

This proposal is dangerous in more ways than just in regards to human rights. If then UN can make the demand that each nation legalizes euthanasia, what makes the UN stop there?

Here are the reasons those of you who have not voted need to vote against it, and why those of you who have voted for the proposal need to reconsider:

1.) This makes demands upon religious nations to legalize a practice that they do not believe in.

2.) It is not the place of the UN to govern internal affairs of each nation, when it comes to issues of this nature.

3.) This is a violation of the sovergnty of all UN members. If the UN gains enough clout to force this through, what comes next?

4.) This would allow for a great amount of malpractice in the medical community, even abuse. Euthanasia could become yet another cash cow. Can you imagine having Euthanasia clinics? That is a frightening concept, but if this is passed it will become all too likely.

5.) It is not entirely clear to me why this is even an issue that the UN should be concerned with. Aren't there more important things for the UN to be debating?


This must not pass. It is not the place of man to play God. Death comes to those whose time has come. Doctors should only be involved in prolonging life, not ending it. Mercy killing? That sounds like an oxymoron.

National sovereignity is irrelevant. Only individuals are sovereign. If a nation is violating individual rights, the UN has a right to setp in.

My english is not so good, for that is difficult to explain what I think.
I think that you are not the owner of your life, and that you cant know what is going to happen you in the future, maybe you think that you are going to die, and you decide to take the euthanasia... but if one day after your provocated death someones discover the solution for your illness?
That is my position, I am against this and against abort, and I will leave the UN if this proposal goes on.

My english is not so good, for that is difficult to explain what I think.
I think that you are not the owner of your life, and that you cant know what is going to happen you in the future, maybe you think that you are going to die, and you decide to take the euthanasia... but if one day after your provocated death someones discover the solution for your illness?
That is my position, I am against this and against abort, and I will leave the UN if this proposal goes on.

Our government and our people are vigorously opposed to this proposition. We consider it is morally outrageous that an august body like the U.N should even consider putting such an objectionable topic as this forward for consideration. There are too many more important and relevant issues to be decided and discussed than for time to be squandered on such an issue. If this proposal is passed we will NEVER follow or obey it!

It is the position of our government, with the unanimous wishes and agreement of our people, that ANY person, medical or otherwise found engaging in such a barbaric act will be punished severely and banished/expelled from our country in perpetuity.

We encourage and urge ALL U.N MEMBERS TO VOTE AGAINST THIS PROPOSAL.

Our government and our people are vigorously opposed to this proposition. We consider it is morally outrageous that an august body like the U.N should even consider putting such an objectionable topic as this forward for consideration. There are too many more important and relevant issues to be decided and discussed than for time to be squandered on such an issue. If this proposal is passed we will NEVER follow or obey it!

It is the position of our government, with the unanimous wishes and agreement of our people, that ANY person, medical or otherwise found engaging in such a barbaric act will be punished severely and banished/expelled from our country in perpetuity.

We encourage and urge ALL U.N MEMBERS TO VOTE AGAINST THIS PROPOSAL.

personally im pro-choice about it. i personally im pro choice on the euthnasia thing.

wouldn't the logical stance to call "pro-choice" be the stance that believes this should be an issue in which nations have the freedom to choose outside of a UN mandate?

personally im pro-choice about it. i personally im pro choice on the euthnasia thing.

wouldn't the logical stance to call "pro-choice" be the stance that believes this should be an issue in which nations have the freedom to choose outside of a UN mandate?

National sovereignity is irrelevant. Only individuals are sovereign. If a nation is violating individual rights, the UN has a right to setp in.

National governments exist to govern the people of their nations. What you appear to be proposing is that this intermediate level be eliminated, moving up instead into a world governed solely by a single ruling body, that is, the United Nations. A one world government. Somehow, that just doesn't sound wise to me.

Also, an addendum to my previous post, does anyone find it odd how often the side in favor of a particular thing calls itself "pro choice"? Never "pro euthanasea", nor "pro abortion", other such thing it seems to be; rather they try to appear neutral or moderate by favoring "choice." Not trying to stir up controversy there so much as point out a trend I find rather...amusing.

If this passes then the United States of Croniun will leave the UN because our morals are better than that. If euthanasia passes, it will eventually lead to things such as infants being killed at birth because they are no use to society (mental retardation, physical disability etc.). Croniun will not sit back and watch the murder and suicide of innocent people.

We of Joccia had not really expected to be faced with dillemas of the magnitude of this one in a generally light-hearted game. My thanks to Grande. We are drawn to arguments on both sides of this coin - Compassion versus Caution.

We must ask a question however, are we merely trying to rationalise an answer to the failures in the almost holy medical search for immortality. Would we be better to talk about limiting the powers of the medical profession in the prolonging of life when there is no justifiable reason, other than professional ego, for doing so.

Euthanasia cannot be a viable option until medicine is able to restore life where there is none - We don't mean ressusitation, we are talking about revivification - on the third day etc. Just as capital punishment can be invalidated by the execution of one innocent person - so can euthanasia be devalued!

We feel that the whole question of euthanasia is a "western" concept. The question doesn't arise in the third world - there is no choice. People simply die because they don't have access to the "wonders" of a society that can afford medical expertise - let alone research foundations!!

This question must remain up to the individual - We don't even mean nation states. Were we ever in the sad situation described in the tragic prose in which this resolution was couched (Shame on you Grande!). We would probably make the same decision as the child, and be glad to accept whatever consequences - BECAUSE THE DEED WAS BORN OF LOVE! Only a decision made based on care has any validity in this scenario, no other reason is acceptable.

We will not use our personal religious beliefs as an argument in this forum: should the motion be carried we must then make our own decision as to whether we can remain a part of this august assembly.

Mac Rex

:roll:

:oops:

Well, as far as I'm concerned, this sort of thing is perfectly okay. If someone wants to die because they are already dying, then more power to them. In Hinkdominia, this sort of thing is actually encouraged to keep work and production more efficient. The last thing that we need is a lot of geriatric geezers slowing down productivity.

While Cheronton is indeed in favor of euthanasia, this specific document is far too vague for Cheronton to support. Perhaps if the one proposing it had been more thorough with its explanations and rules, we would support it. This document is too easy to abuse and reworded. I suggest to the nation that proposed this Resolution, as well as every other nation wishing to propose a Resolution to be specific and thorough with it and not leave anything uncertain.

While Cheronton is indeed in favor of euthanasia, this specific document is far too vague for Cheronton to support. Perhaps if the one proposing it had been more thorough with its explanations and rules, we would support it. This document is too easy to abuse and reworded. I suggest to the nation that proposed this Resolution, as well as every other nation wishing to propose a Resolution, to be specific and thorough with it and not leave anything uncertain.

This proposal is dangerous in more ways than just in regards to human rights. If then UN can make the demand that each nation legalizes euthanasia, what makes the UN stop there?

Here are the reasons those of you who have not voted need to vote against it, and why those of you who have voted for the proposal need to reconsider:

1.) This makes demands upon religious nations to legalize a practice that they do not believe in.

2.) It is not the place of the UN to govern internal affairs of each nation, when it comes to issues of this nature.

3.) This is a violation of the sovergnty of all UN members. If the UN gains enough clout to force this through, what comes next?

4.) This would allow for a great amount of malpractice in the medical community, even abuse. Euthanasia could become yet another cash cow. Can you imagine having Euthanasia clinics? That is a frightening concept, but if this is passed it will become all too likely.

5.) It is not entirely clear to me why this is even an issue that the UN should be concerned with. Aren't there more important things for the UN to be debating?


This must not pass. It is not the place of man to play God. Death comes to those whose time has come. Doctors should only be involved in prolonging life, not ending it. Mercy killing? That sounds like an oxymoron.

You missed the far more important and universal problem. I personally pro-choice (meaning that I support the right to choose to die, but not the right for others to kill just because they think you might want to die - euthanise only with explicit consent, is my opinion). There are far too many holes in this proposal. It is far too vague, and would allow for all kinds of appalling results. Even if you agree with the basic principle, PLEASE vote against this thing.

National sovereignity is irrelevant. Only individuals are sovereign. If a nation is violating individual rights, the UN has a right to setp in.

If only individuals are soveriegn, then why should this be a matter for the UN? Let the individual states decide - after all, within at least some member states, the government works by the consent of the governed. The UN, however, in no such case (except, possible, in tyranny of majority nations) has its resolutions voted upon by individuals, only states. You would think such a dedicated individualist would have some problems with forcing policies through an international body that is completely isolated from the direct consent of the governed. Curious.

Once again, it is a dreadful shame that many members of the UN seem dedicated to remaking all members in their own image. The RCO is a Catholic nation, and find euthanasia evil. Does that mean that we try to put forward resolutions banning all nations from practicing it? Indeed, does it mean that we bring forth resolutions requiring every nation to be Catholic? No. Were such resolutions to come before this body, we would vote against - we are not interested in forcing other member nations into our mold. Apparently some "pro-choice" nations are the ones more infatuated with removing individual choice from the nations of the UN.

We vote against this measure for reasons of justice, morality, governmental limits, and the UN's proper role. We hope that the majority of voting nations will concur.

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

We have a saying in the Isles, "Dragons don't stop with sheep." Our national motto is drawn from that.

Large creatures, even the most docile creature, need large amounts of food to live and be active. People think if you throw them something worthless, like a few sheep, you can stave off the problem indefinately.

Unfortunately, eventually the animal grows, and needs more food to survive. At that point, it begins devouring more important things, like the people.

In the end, heros and patriots must drive off the dragon anyway, and the village is left with less people and less sheep.

The UN is a similar dragon. It can grow bigger and bigger the more it is fed. The UN Members try to placate it by giving up small, unimportant things, like sovereignty, military power, criminal justice, even morality. It is folly to think that having taken these small things, the Dragon would stop short of devouring entire nations.

That is why the Isles does not deal with the Dragon.

As we have said many times, playing with an unrestricted, unchartered, unlimited government is dancing with fire.

Magnus John St. George, Leader of the Isles

you know, if you really think about it, euthanasea could be done in any country today. All someone needs to do is go jump off a building or something

Psyche, you seem to fail to realize that the U.N. can't order a government to violate a religon. And for many groups, including Muslims, Hindus, Buddists, Jews and Christians (not to mention any indeginous religons, or others I forgot to list) this is a purely religous aspect. If you pass this, you could just as well pass a bill legalising cock fights. After all, it doesn't hurt anyone, and its fun to watch right? Not to compare a human to a chicken, but the idea that this doesn't hurt anyone is really not true. You are offending a religon and a HUGE voting base (You do want to stay in power, right?). The U.N. should not be allowed to impede on a religon of even a single person. And not to get all soft, but you're also violating the human spirit, whether you're an evolutionist or not. Evolution teaches that we exist to survive, and these people still have the ability to live. Now granted, a passive sucide would be all right, pulling the plug as it were, but to blantantly kill someone, you should be able to see the road this could lead down. Killings al over just because someone has a lot of money, and is in a come. This would just open the floodgates...

I would like to voice my disapproval of this resolution for one reason alone: that by implimenting international decisions in national law, UN member's individual right to legislate is being broken. The resolution does not concern international human rights, but national legal rights. An acceptable resolution would be the right to a dignified death (for example), which does not, unlike this resolution interefere on a local legislative level, and would allow the governments of individual countries to decide what action would be appropriate to take in order to implement the UN's will. Despite Fib's support for passive euthanasia, I feel that I am compelled to vote against this resolution on the grounds that it is in violation of the spirit of the UN: that of an international organisation dealing with international (between states) issues.

What an appalingly bad resolution, relying on cheap sentimentality to garner votes. It is poorly thought out and more full of holes than a Swss cheese.

Bhang Bhang Duc has voted against this resolution and we strongly urge all UN Members to do the same.

The Untied Star Empire of Valinon, in its capacity as regional delegate, is throwing our full support against this tawdry peace of sentimentalist writing. Those responsible for this should consider a career on the ABC Family network, and save the rest of us from their sad attempts at writing. Also this resolution voilates all rights to national sovereignity of UN members, a basic principle of the UN.

Greeting,


Euthanesia as described in the UN project law is not what the people of my country wants.

Euthanesia shall be done only in case of extreme medical procedure with no chance to a normal life but more suffering to the sick person.

Euthanesia shall be proceed when someone brain dead or not, cannot expect to live without mechanical machine. However, the person must have a living will or being consulted if she/he has still consience about her/his conditions.

Exemple a person is already dependant of a lung respirator, and a council of doctors, after many testing said she/he will never recover or might need to have more operations such as cutting the legs due to infections etc. Anything that will come to the patient will be in extreme mesure. Than and only then will the Country of Ficelle will approve Euthanesia.

Euthanesia as described in the UN project law is not what the people of my country wants.

Vote against the proposal then! :D

A person should not be allowed to be euthenized unless they specifically say, "Kill me!!!" Or make a gurgling nosie of something to indicate they want to die. This legislation allows one to die without ever having the option.

Plus, this legislation takes rights out of the hands of the nations. A nation should have the rights to do what is right with their citizens.

Proper euthenasia should allow the patient to decide to die, not just some friend or family member.

Unless the person can decide to die they should not die.

I urge any nations whose religious beliefs compel them to ignore such a law to do so. I have no such religious beliefs, but I object to euthanasia for the vague wording with which it is proposed. The UN does not have the right to tell me what to do with my people, and it isn't going to.

The UN does not have the right to tell me what to do with my people, and it isn't going to.

At least not on such issues of life and death.

Blast you conservative "politically correct" people, if someone wants to not have thier family/ close friends suffer while they lie in a rotting body, that is thier choice!
:arrow: Granted, the government will have all sorts of mad fun trying to figure out a process that actually works, and one where no one gets sued all the time, but I am pro-choice as far as the actual euthanasia goes. However, I want it to be known that if a government was to accept this and legalizr it, there would be a whole new world of legal proceedings, and also (possibly) more insurance fraud and problems than before, and there are enough of those. So, I am against euthanasia for problems that would be caused, and the trouble that, quite frankly, it is not worth.

Blast you conservative "politically correct" people, if someone wants to not have thier family/ close friends suffer while they lie in a rotting body, that is thier choice!
:arrow: Granted, the government will have all sorts of mad fun trying to figure out a process that actually works, and one where no one gets sued all the time, but I am pro-choice as far as the actual euthanasia goes. However, I want it to be known that if a government was to accept this and legalizr it, there would be a whole new world of legal proceedings, and also (possibly) more insurance fraud and problems than before, and there are enough of those. So, I am against euthanasia for problems that would be caused, and the trouble that, quite frankly, it is not worth.

How can it be possible for a nation to be forced to legalise euthanasia. Surely it is down to each respective government to make decisions like this, not a world body that is made up of many different nations with many different beliefs.
I don't think euthanasia is right :arrow: if someone is in a coma they can't exactly say "Please kill me".
Passive euthanasia will only lead to everyone who has some sort of genetic defect or illness being killed. You just need to look at the Nazi's to see what can happen.
It's not up to the UN to say governments can play God :evil:

Un is not allowed to play GOD so my vote is of course against the Un proposal

I must say that I'm totally against this. I don't feel the UN or any other institution has the right to decided when someone will die. We are not God, and I think it is time we stop trying to play God.

I work in the medical field in "real life" I had a patient that was in a coma and on life support for over 10 years. All the doctors kepting telling the patients family to discontinue life support, basically asking them to kill thier loved one. The family refused and refused. One day out of no where that patient starting to get better, 18 years later came out of his comma, and off of life support. Today this patient is completely fine and has returned to a normal life.

But just think if that family would have played God....today they would be missing out on so much more.

No this in not the norm, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen!

I'm glad to see the direction this debate is taking, but the actual votes cast still support the resolution. Stop talking and start voting against. Get your regional delegate to vote against too. We must defeat this resolution!

King William I

yay now i can just have someone sign a paper and go kill them and the governmnet can so shit about it....my life long dream.......but common seriously if this proposal passes it will leed to chaos.......family members could be killed to resieve money...u kno not everyone likes their rich brother or sister ..then there are suicidals that will totaly love this proposal........there is also a problem that the medical deparment will get to no where if they kill of any way for them to get a cure for the desease

Euthanasia of a kind is ALREADY legal in most places; it is called, variously, Do Not Resuscitate, No Heroic Measures, or others: it is laid out in a document called a Living Will, as opposed to the Last Will and Testament.

In the Living Will, the person can say either that he wants all available medical care to be administered under any circumstances, or that in certain circumstances, which he can specify, he does not wish life-sustaining care.

For example, a typical Living Will would say that a patient should receive life-sustaining care (i.e., respirator, fed through a tube, etc.) if he will recover from his disability, but if his disability is permanent or he is in a coma, that the respirator/tube feeding not be started in the first place.

I know that my parents' living will states that, if they are hospitalized, and unable to make decisions (i.e., unconscious, seriously disoriented, etc.) they should not be put on respirators, but merely be given water and oxygen until they either recover or die.

The system of Living Wills is a sensible one. There is no need to create a provision for euthanasia, which you know is going to be misused, in the UN.

The Most Serene Republic of Istahan, while being in favour of the Right to Die a Dignified Death, is voting against this resolution. Why?

1) This proposal includes a part in which a person who is temporarily paralysed could be euthanased, without their consent. The Istahani do not view this as honourable treatment.

2) This proposal is very badly worded, in particular regard to ages and time lengths.

3) This proposal is about an issue that should come under national, not international, sovereignty. If the UN is allowed to legislate on issues such as this, where will it end?

That said, Istahan will not withdraw from the United Nations should this resolution be passed, unless further such proposals are also passed. Istahan shall abide by the result in this case.

euthanasia should be legallised. if not, then you condem people who deserve it. coma patients and the terminally ill shouldnt be left alive, draing resources. they should be disposed of in the quickest, most painless way possible. most of these people are already dead, their brains just havnt caught onto the fact yet.
in a world of dwindling resources, we cant aford to let any go to waste, especially on those who cant benefit from them. if euthanasia is legallised, then families will be able to let go of their loved ones and grieve properly, instead of visiting a corpes hooked up to a machine, in an effort to escape from the reality that the patient is technically dead.

Istahan does not view coma patients as being dead - they still have many of the reflexes that are tested in order to tell whether a person's brain has died. However, those who are terminally ill are able to access euthanasia within Istahan, provided they wish to do so.

euthanasia has been legal in skys edge for some time. i believe that if there is conclusive proof that the patient wont recover, ever, then they should be "released".

Ok some countries are fine with killing off their sick people, but does the UN have the right to tell all countries that they should do the same. Also even if you support euthanasia, do you support killing old people who can still be made to work and earn money for your country. That's what this resolution inludes. Vote against it now :!:

I am against this proposal . It potentially opens the door for nations deciding that "genetically" inferior races are a drain on the systems and therefor should be eliminated, all with the cover of a U.N. mandate.
We have to take emotions out of this and look at history, what occurs when the world either ignores or sanctions the disposal of it's inhabiatants. :(

Regardless of any moral or religious argument, the UN doesn't have a call to be meddling so deeply into the internal affairs of the sovereign nations. Each nation has their own moral and societal outlook on Euthanasia. The UN has no call to be subjugating the outlooks of one group to the wishes of another. Those nations that want legal euthanasia will pass those laws locally, those that don't, won't.