NationStates Jolt Archive

There's bound to be a thread like this. Probably more than one. Let's all argue about this resolution here :P

Good idea.
I'm not sure on this issue for the moment, so I'll just see if any of you can convince me to vote either way.

I think that euthanasia is not ok. Assisted suicide yes. Euthanasia, no! Euthanasia is defined as "the deliberate killing of a person who is very ill and going to die, in order to stop them suffering" (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English).

Assisted Suicide: when a doctor or someone else helps a person who is very ill to kill themselves in order to end their suffering (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English).

A few questions that pop up in my mind:
- How do you know if someone is suffering?
- How do you know if someone is going to die?
- If someone is in a coma, who has the right to say that the person should die?
- How do we know that the "close" relative is really close, or has some criminal intent?

Assisted suicide on the other hand, requires the person, who is suffering, to make the decision. It gives the right of life and death to the person, not someone else.

The resolution seems fairly well thought out, in terms of protecting the interests of the patient. There is a provision for a sort of "living will" that would answer the question of who decides.

There also comes a time, in the case of someone in a coma, when it is apparent that the patient is not going to wake. We have the medical technology to determine this, in most cases.

Quite frankly, there is enough suffering in the world without causing to suffer those who have no chance of recovery.

I agree with Lumpy Nuts on euthanasia and assisted suicide. I also think that a very strong point is how do you know if someone is suffering unless they tell you? And how do they know how bad it really is? People cry over small cuts all the time... do you really think that they should be granted a legal way to commit suicide over potentially nothing?

The resolution seems fairly well thought out, in terms of protecting the interests of the patient. There is a provision for a sort of "living will" that would answer the question of who decides.

There also comes a time, in the case of someone in a coma, when it is apparent that the patient is not going to wake. We have the medical technology to determine this, in most cases.

Quite frankly, there is enough suffering in the world without causing to suffer those who have no chance of recovery.

I will grant that this has been through some thought, but there is still too many unresolved issues that has to be addressed.

1. There may be a provision for a living will, but only if you are seriously ill. What if a medical situation occurs that renders one unable to make that will?

2. Who determines that one should die if terminally ill? Should the medical profession be the ones that determine this? Are there any checks to prevent abuse? (e.g. killing patients off for organs).

Such issues must be resolved before such a resolution can be passed.

... do you really think that they should be granted a legal way to commit suicide over potentially nothing?

You just brought up a good point against assisted suicide too. :) People should be allowed to kill themselves, but only for medical reasons... and only when the state has tried all means to dissuade them... or something like that.

Ugh. this will require lots more thinking.

People should be allowed to kill themselves, but only for medical reasons... and only when the state has tried all means to dissuade them...

Why? If they have a right to life, they have the right to choose when it ends. The point about making a rational decision for assisted suicide and safeguards is valid but how would you stop irrational non-assisted suicide? Put the body in jail? Introduce the death penalty as a deterrent?

I like the issue, but i'm worried about the fact that a relative has the right to do it. In my opinion it should be done in a medical facility by doctors.

It is a proven fact that every nation which has legalized euthenasia, those being mostly liberal europena countries, has suffered a decline ni the "definition" of euthenasia, and a rise in the number of people who use the law to end their lives even when suffering from non-terminal ilneses, and even depression.

Please, say no to this resolution, as it would be turned down in the real world in 2 seconds flat.

Why? If they have a right to life, they have the right to choose when it ends. The point about making a rational decision for assisted suicide and safeguards is valid but how would you stop irrational non-assisted suicide? Put the body in jail? Introduce the death penalty as a deterrent?

True. One should be able to choose life or death as and when one wants it. However, from the point of a government, this is a bad idea. The country needs people for it to run. If people were to kill themselves without reasonable restraint, the country may come to ruin, especially economicallly.

As a private citizen, I don't give a rat's ass if someone decides to end their life. If someone want to die, so much the better.

Doctors, when they qualify, take the Hippocratic oath - part of that oath states that medical practicioners have the duty to "Preserve life at all costs". Euthanasia undermines the ethical basis of medical practice, and at this time I believe that is the last thing we need to do. In the UK we have a serial killer called Harold Shipman, he was a medical practioner and killed over 300 people (all of whom were elderly and most were ill). If euthanasia was legalised I believe Shipman could have carried on killing for much longer. I don't believe that anyone has the right to kill another person (we'll not get into the abortion debate now) that is manslaughter or murder. Assisted suicide is an option, but it is morally dubious, who decides when a person has the right to take their own life? Do people who suffer from serious mental illnesses (such as paranoid schizophrenia) have a valid case for ending their lives? There are too many questions to be answered to make this into workable law.

I say vote against!

...Assisted suicide is an option, but it is morally dubious, who decides when a person has the right to take their own life? Do people who suffer from serious mental illnesses (such as paranoid schizophrenia) have a valid case for ending their lives? There are too many questions to be answered to make this into workable law.

I say vote against!

I am re-thinking my stand on assisted suicide due to your statement above. Thanks

People always bang on about doctors and the hippocratic oath. It is a complete waste of time. It does not say in there "Preserve life at all costs"

But it does say

that the doctor must teach for free and take in to his family the sons of the doctor who taught him.

Never perform surgery

Never give a treatment that will lead to an abortion

not give a deadly drug or prescribe a treatment that causes death.

If you want to take one you have to take them all, can you see medical schools not taking fees because it is in the oath, i think not

Krambambuli opposes this resolution proposal and votes AGAINST.

Firstly, we want to strongly object to the sentence "Why should carers use up time on those certain to die, when this time could be spent with those with a chance of life?". Every single patient in whatever condition deserves utmost care!

Substantially, we oppose the proposal mainly because it's too vague; does it address the question of so-called passive euthanasia or also the one of active euthanasia? Whereas passive euthanasia means withdrawing or -holding medical treatment (e.g. by switching off machines), active euthanasia means actually doing something actively to end the patient's life (e.g. by injecting the patient with poison or an overdose of anesthetics). It is a small, but in our opinion important difference:

Passive euthanasia should be legal (and is legal in most legislations known to us) on demand of the patient (Reason: her/his unalienable right of self-determination) - expressed or (under certain strict prerequisites - e.g. a living will) presumed.

Active euthanasia on the other hand should remain strictly illegal (maybe with certain mitigations concerning punishment), because firstly humans should never by law be allowed to kill other humans unless it's self-defense (yes, Krambambuli opposes the death-penalty, too) and secondly because it could turn out to be a first step onto a slippery slope.
But it should be allowed to administer painkillers in an effictive way - even though this might lead to an overdose and the patient's dead (so-called indirect euthanasia) because the patient has a right to live and die free of pain if medicaments allow that.

It is thus our firm belief that we are not allowed to intently shorten a life but also not allowed to lengthen it against the person's wishes or to hinder her/him ending her/his life if this proves to be a deliberated step taken consciously.

I am against this resolution. From whatever religion you believe in, God gave you your life, and it is upon his intention only that it shall be taken.

I hope this resolution fails for two reasons.
1. It allows people to be killed *Without* their consent.
2. It would take away a nation's right to legislate this matter
in a way that seems prudent to the majority of people in
their nation.

This is too controversial to be forced on every nation.
The UN's effectiveness in promoting peace, justice and unity has
been compromised by many proposals which have already passed.
This resolution is but another nail in the UN's coffin.

Catholic Europe does not support Euthanasia.

We, the government for the grand nation of Merkidemis, jewel of the Pacific, feel that euthanasia should be legal. Keeping patients alive in a vegitative state is very expensive and raises insurance and medical costs for everyone, not to mention prolonging the emotional agony of the family. Would you want your family's savings to go down the drain, just so you can be kept alive by mechanical means, even though you are declared brain dead? I think not. Therefor, we are voting for this resolution.

I believe this legislation should be passed, it's a step in the right direction. People have the right to determine if they should live or not.

In both cases of Active and Passive Euthenasia, we can make legal resolutions within our county what are acceptable forms. In some cases, passive euthenasia might result in more suffering than active Euthenasia or the case itself. Such an example would be a women dying of cancer. If you starve her to death, and deny her chemo, you are increasing her suffering. However, if you inject her with poison the suffering of her last moments are painless and peaceful.

A person can determine if someone has power of attorney over them if they will, but for the sake of a persons basic human rights, the power of atorney ought to be described as to what powers they have and under what cicumstances.

Yes, I agree now that this resolution is vague. However, a nation has the soveirgn right to limit euthenasia, since the resolution does not permit it for all occasions. The nations effected have the right to make limitations over how to apply it and what rights someone else claimed "power-of-attorney" would have in these instences.

We cannot let this resolution pass.
I am completely for Voluntary Euthanasia, but this proposal is dangerously worded.
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.The above passage effectively legalises compulsory euthanasia.
For those of you who are unsure, compulsory euthanasia is where people are killed becuase they are believed to be of an inferior race, or too old to be of use, etc. This took place on a large scale in WWII in Nazi concentraion camps.
If this resolution passes, then if a government decides that people over retirement age are no longer of use, they could be killed on the advice of government-employed doctors. This cannot be allowed.

I urge everybody to vote no to this resolution.

Catholic Europe does not support Euthanasia.

What does Catholic Europe endorse? I think that this is a prime case for Catholic Europe to show they actually care about human rights and not merely about forcing their morals.

OOC (or is that IC?): Let's create a Logan's Run Utopia and recycle our citizens when they reach the age of thirty!

The Government of Arthuria-Elizabetia cannot support this resolution.

The idea that people should be legally terminated goes against every moral fibre that our nation is founded on.

The question that this resolution leads us to ask is this: If we open this door, what comes next? Will we, in a few weeks' time, be debating mandatory euthenasia for all those of a certain age or infirmity?

We recall a time, long ago, when a certain leader embarked on euthenasia of all those he deemed mentally deficient. It was, unsurprisingly, Hitler.

Germany was disgusted by such an open and heinous act, and forced an end to the program. The secret genocides, however, remained unknown until 1945.

If we legalize euthenasia, how do we prevent such heinous abuses? The answer is clear: we cannot legalize euthenasia.

I vote NO on the Resolution.

My reason is simple. While I personally support voluntary euthanasia, and it is legal practice in the Socialist Queendom of Labrador...the euthanasia issue is one which comes up to individual nations in the course of going thru daily issues.

Thus, it is obviously the intent of the game...for this issue to be decided by individual nations and is NOT the purvue of the U.N.

There are some in this game who wish to try to use the UN to force it's views onto other nations who may not agree with thier views (conservatives are just as guilty in this regard)

However, I do not feel this is an appropriate issue to be handled at the level of the UN, because it is an issue that comes up to individual nations, in the daily issues, and to pass this Resolution would be tantamount to an invasion and usurpation of soveignty of nations.

My vote remains NO...even though I do support the principle of the Resolution, and, in fact, have legal euthanasia within my borders. I do not feel it is appropriate for the UN to be usurping national soverignty in a matter that is able to be (and apparently intended to be) decided by individual nations.

If it were not intended to be decided by individual nations, then why would we have a possible daily issue that addresses this very thing? I say let individual nations make their own decisions, and quit trying to force YOUR decisions on nations who may not agree with your views on the subject.

More to the point, the Resolution looks like it was written by a ten-year old.

OOC (or is that IC?): Let's create a Logan's Run Utopia and recycle our citizens when they reach the age of thirty!

Hang on, I'm gonna change my vote to a YES!!!

Only young, virulent people will populate my nation from now on.

Catholic Europe does not support Euthanasia.

What does Catholic Europe endorse?

What issues would you like me to comment on? Euthanasia? That, I will never allow.

I think that this is a prime case for Catholic Europe to show they actually care about human rights and not merely about forcing their morals.

Of course we care about human rights. We were strong supporters of the anti-torture resolution. Infact, we care so much about human rights, that we oppose this resolution which will legalise their murder.

OOC (or is that IC?): Let's create a Logan's Run Utopia and recycle our citizens when they reach the age of thirty!

Hang on, I'm gonna change my vote to a YES!!!

Only young, virulent people will populate my nation from now on.

I'm telling your grandma you said that!! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Even tho' I am in favour of legalising euthanasia I have just voted against this resolution. Why? Becouse forcing a huge number of nations to legalize something so dramatical like euthanasia is taking things too far. I take it this thread (that I didn't bother reading through =)) shows that opinions on euthanasia are well divided and the religious question is nowhere near as easy to answer as it would seem to be based on how the resolution is written.

Basically, if the UN decides to encourage nations lo legalize euthanasia, fine. That I can vote for. But force a nation to have a certain view on life and death, never.

This resolution is far too sweeping. What about nations who do not beleive in euthanasia due to the religious beliefs? Are their opinions to be ignored? Passing this resolution will trample on the religious and moral beliefs of many nations. I do not believe the resolution needs to be scrapped, but certainly revised. Perhaps the resolution could require member nations to take the issue into discussion in their respective Parlaiments. At any rate, you cant require nations to legalize euthanasia, that would'nt be right.

This resolution is far too sweeping. What about nations who do not beleive in euthanasia due to the religious beliefs? Are their opinions to be ignored? Passing this resolution will trample on the religious and moral beliefs of many nations.

Well, it seems as if the atheist and secular nations don't really care about what we think. Yet, when we propose something they all scream then. :x

*continues rant*

As a nation who stands on its faith as a united people, we cannot agree with the legalization of euthanasia. As an individual nation of strong faithful people, we must share our view. Please remember the religios freedoms of individual states when voting on this issue.

T. Hoskins
Spokesperson

Please remember the religios freedoms of individual states when voting on this issue.

T. Hoskins
Spokesperson

Nope, they won't remember. Infact, they want to deny the right to freedom of religion.

*rants some more*

This resolution is far too sweeping. What about nations who do not beleive in euthanasia due to the religious beliefs? Are their opinions to be ignored? Passing this resolution will trample on the religious and moral beliefs of many nations.

Well, it seems as if the atheist and secular nations don't really care about what we think. Yet, when we propose something they all scream then. :x

*continues rant*
Just because Euthanasia is legalised doesn mean that people have to be euthanised. If people's religious beliefs went agains euthanasia they can simply not ask to be euthanised.
However, if you read my post above, you will see why I am voting agaist even though we are an atheist, liberal government.

And it kind of ticks me off that you seem to think that I "want to deny the right to freedom of religion. " People in Nibbleton are free to do as they wish with regards to religion.

This is a Highly Personal issue that should not be decided on a worldwide basis!

This issue comes up in the "issues" quite regularly. Decide for your own country, leave me alone!

If my citizens happen to disagree with my policies on this issue, they are welcome to take their ailing relative on vacation to your country where they may like the answers better.

In my country doctors are given protection from prosecution if they assist a family in terminating a life IF certain circumstances exsist. (To lengthy to go into here, but trust that I'm fair)

Doctors are also given protection from prosecution if they choose to recuse themsleves from a case if their ethics and those of the family are in conflict.

Citizens are neither punished nor rewarded for their actions regarding the end of life for a terminally ill family member. There is much paperwork involved, and these decisions are best pondered in advance, but once it has been determined that the patient meets certain standards, much leagle manuvering is stopped. JennyWorld has it's own court dedicated to only this issue so that decisions can be made swiftly and fairly.

BUT this is the way MY COUNTRY does it. I would not expect anyone else to abide by my laws. (Unless you are inside my borders) and I RESENT the UN trying to take this power away from me.

This is a Highly Personal issue that should not be decided on a worldwide basis!

This issue comes up in the "issues" quite regularly. Decide for your own country, leave me alone!

If my citizens happen to disagree with my policies on this issue, they are welcome to take their ailing relative on vacation to your country where they may like the answers better.

In my country doctors are given protection from prosecution if they assist a family in terminating a life IF certain circumstances exsist. (To lengthy to go into here, but trust that I'm fair)

Doctors are also given protection from prosecution if they choose to recuse themsleves from a case if their ethics and those of the family are in conflict.

Citizens are neither punished nor rewarded for their actions regarding the end of life for a terminally ill family member. There is much paperwork involved, and these decisions are best pondered in advance, but once it has been determined that the patient meets certain standards, much leagle manuvering is stopped. JennyWorld has it's own court dedicated to only this issue so that decisions can be made swiftly and fairly.

BUT this is the way MY COUNTRY does it. I would not expect anyone else to abide by my laws. (Unless you are inside my borders) and I RESENT the UN trying to take this power away from me.

I would like to remind of the advocates that all resolutions passed by the UN are required to be followed out by member nations. Passing this legislature requires member nations of religious nature to go against what their faith says on the topic.

The case was made that if the person in question does not believe in euthanasia that they can choose not to be euthanised. Most people in that situation are not able to make such decisions. Passing this resolution will only hinder nations that pursue religious freedom, because this resolution undermines the moral fiber of many nations.

This resolution must not pass as stands. It needs vast revision before my country will consider this as legitimate.

I would like to remind of the advocates of this resolution that all resolutions passed by the UN are required to be followed out by member nations. Passing this legislature requires member nations of religious nature to go against what their faith says on the topic.

The case was made that if the person in question does not believe in euthanasia that they can choose not to be euthanised. Most people in that situation are not able to make such decisions. Passing this resolution will only hinder nations that pursue religious freedom, because this resolution undermines the moral fiber of many nations.

This resolution must not pass as stands. It needs vast revision before my country will consider this as legitimate.

I personally believe that euthanasia should not have a place to be decided worldly, but is a personal choice for each nation to make on it's own. If this passes it infringes upon a nations right to govern it's people as they want, in a most obtrusive way. I believe that every nation will encounter an option within it's own issues relating to euthanasia. Therefore I urge even those who believe that it is a good idea to vote no, to maintain a nations right to make it's own decision on this much debated subject.

Please remember the religios freedoms of individual states when voting on this issue.

T. Hoskins
Spokesperson

Nope, they won't remember. Infact, they want to deny the right to freedom of religion.

*rants some more*

I take offense to this generalization, Catholic Europe.
As you well know, we are a secular, liberal nation...and allow for euthanasia within our borders...yet, we have stood up, voted AGAINST this resolution...encouraged, and succeeded, in getting our Regional Delegate to vote against it...and have encouraged others, through this Forum, to vote against it.
Now would you call THAT wanting to deny YOU freedom of religion??
I didn't think so!

Please remember the religios freedoms of individual states when voting on this issue.

T. Hoskins
Spokesperson

Nope, they won't remember. Infact, they want to deny the right to freedom of religion.

*rants some more*

I take offense to this generalization, Catholic Europe.
As you well know, we are a secular, liberal nation...and allow for euthanasia within our borders...yet, we have stood up, voted AGAINST this resolution...encouraged, and succeeded, in getting our Regional Delegate to vote against it...and have encouraged others, through this Forum, to vote against it.
Now would you call THAT wanting to deny YOU freedom of religion??
I didn't think so!

*rant on*
On the other hand...you can ALSO expect me to take a stand against you trying to use the UN to force your religious/moral views down the throats of other nations.

what you choose to do in yur own nation is your own business, and I will defend that. but you and other religious nations have no right to force your religious/moral views on a soverign, SECULAR nation such as mine!
*rant off*

I support the legalisation of voluntary euthanasia - where the patient has made his or her OWN decision, whether before the illness in a kind of living will, or during the illness when they can still express their wishes - the right to die, just like the right to live, is a fundamental human rights issue. Personally, I am against involuntary euthanasia, where the patient cannot express their wishes so the decision is made for them, but I am not very sure of that opinion, so I am happy to allow others to make thier own decisions on that issue. But I cannot tolerate this resolution, which makes it compulsory to legalise involuntary euthanasia, without providing any block against the state having ill dissidents bumped off. I and others who are in fact pro-voluntary euthanasia have pointed out all the holes in the proposal when Grande submitted it for the second time (look at http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=111512&highlight=) but he didn't even bother to fix the problems we pointed out for him.

The most glaring, and utterly appalling, flaw in this piece of well-intentioned legislation is this:

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.

It says over a certain age - this could be made age one day old by any state - and has no serious illness - so this clause basically covers everyone in the world. It then gives people claiming to be friends or relatives the power to have killed anyone (remember that the last clause could be interpreted in basically any way, since it could cover everyone over 1 day old) who is unsure about whether life is worth living - i.e. anyone going through a temporary spell of clinical depression or many other mental illnesses.

Another glaring loophole is the fact that the right to choose to die is only given to those "over a certain age":

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. 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.

Conservative nations can simply set that "certain age" to 1000, because many people with life-threatening illnesses couldn't make that document anyway - if they're paralysed, they can't write to sign it. And there is nothing to provide for the patient expressing his/her wishes through any method other than the document - paralysis could be construed as a situation where the person "cannot make the decision themselves" and thus where anyone else can step in and request euthanasia because, officially, there is no way for the patient to express the decision themselves.

I have written an alternative euthanasia proposal - which I suggested here: http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=112865&highlight= - and have improved in the thread on the basis of others' comments. It is far clearer, without glaring loopholes, and allows nations to make their own decisions on involuntary euthanasia. Thus I urge all nations to vote against this current resolution, whether they are for or against the basic principle, and if they want euthanasia legalised, support my proposal when I submit it instead.

The resolution seems fairly well thought out, in terms of protecting the interests of the patient. There is a provision for a sort of "living will" that would answer the question of who decides.

There also comes a time, in the case of someone in a coma, when it is apparent that the patient is not going to wake. We have the medical technology to determine this, in most cases.

Quite frankly, there is enough suffering in the world without causing to suffer those who have no chance of recovery.

I will grant that this has been through some thought, but there is still too many unresolved issues that has to be addressed.

1. There may be a provision for a living will, but only if you are seriously ill. What if a medical situation occurs that renders one unable to make that will?

2. Who determines that one should die if terminally ill? Should the medical profession be the ones that determine this? Are there any checks to prevent abuse? (e.g. killing patients off for organs).

Such issues must be resolved before such a resolution can be passed.


I agree with euthanasia in some circumstances, and I do have a Living Will with that option stated for myself.

In this setting, the country of Ravenswuf has legalized euthanasia. But it is important WHO decides and WHY. There are a lot of unsolved issues in this resolution.
:roll:

we cannot as civilised people allow this to be passed, this is not a question of individual freedom at this level but a question of national freedom. If you have strong feelings about legalising euthanasia then do so in your own country. By doing this you are forcing others who perhaps have just as strong a feeling against it to legalise it. This has potential to split the UN. I know as Un delegate for the common wealth of morven that the majority of our nations are in the bracket of being against this resolution and we would have to consider our place in The Un if this is passed.
Rememberas has been said previously Euthanasia means putting in place a law which states we should kill aal those who are terminally ill.
Again I plead with all who are sane this is a local issue not an international reject this issue now and plcae back into the local arena where it belongs
King Badal

His Royal Highness, the High King Aiglos of Ormal wishes to express his concern regarding the proposed resolution laying before the United Nations. Though His Royal Highness recognizes the right of each sovereign state do decide their own matters, as long as these decisions are not in breach of treaties, pacts, resolutions, or any other writ or decree which is superior to the nation's own statutes, He does not see why matters whose proper place is in the legislature of respective states need be decided in an international assembly.

His Royal Highness urges all States protect their Sovereignty by voting againt this draft resolution.

Furthermore, His Royal Highness sees it as important that Resolutions maintain a stylistic code making them formal and structured as a writ which may gain the supreme power of law. This proposal contains many irregularities that should have been ironed out long before it moving on to the international stage. His Royal Highness therefore requests that all nations making proposals for United Nations resolutions adhere to the following guidelines:

"The United Nations
Justification
Do hereby resolve that
Effect"

Example:

"The United Nations
REMEMBERING the suffering of the people of poorer nations,
RECALLING the Mandate giving them Power to do so,
do hereby resolve that 1)all nations are obliged to see to it that all medical procedures, treatments, and medications that are deemed necessary to continue survival, are given free of charge to those who do not have the funds to pay for them. 2) all nations shall appoint a Supreme Medical Council and inferior Councils as it sees fit to enforce 1)."



For His Royal Highness Aiglos, High King of Ormal,
Galad e'Gothoridrim, Royal Secretary and Scribe

like many nations here, i am in support in principle of the resolution, but against it on the detail. as has already been explained, there are too many loopholes, generalisations and irregularities to allow this resolution to be passed. the UN would fail if it it did not adequeately scrutinise such legislation. i cannot vote for it.

Jixieland

Euthanasia is legal in Marxist Freedonia, but only under strictly regulated circumstances. Marxist Freedonia will vote against this resolution.

We believe that this is a serious matter to be legislated only by Nations, according to the will of the people who chose to live in that Nation.

The resolution is worded so loosely that it could never stand up to any legal challenge, yet it leaves the door wide open for the killing of the elderly or ill for profit or to reduce expense. The choice of death should be that of the individual – however, due to the multiplicity of possible influences which might cause an individual to act against their own true desires, it must be a decision made over time with suitable counseling. ‘Those closest’ to an individual do not necessarily have that individual’s best interests as their primary goal. A desire for inheritance, for freedom from the individual’s influence within their life, or simply the cost of ongoing medical treatment, among multitudinous motives, might lead even a caring person to convince themselves that the individual’s death would be ‘for the best’.

Specific wording within the resolution is highly objectionable: “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.” In that it is not only ambiguous as to what age would be considered the cut-off age at which a human life is of lesser value, or when a person’s physical or emotional disabilities became sufficient burden to those around them that their life loses its inherent value. Furthermore, consideration must be given that people within a single nation, even more so people within a Region, and most especially the peoples throughout our world, for many reasons age physically at different rates, despite chronological passage of time. By this proposal, a hale and hearty man or woman of 80 is considered to have the same capabilities as a frail one whose mental capacity has largely degenerated. And both are considered to be less worthy of life than someone of 20 years who contributes nothing to the lives of others, and is miserable in their own life.

And what of the individual who, at 50, sees themselves already degenerating into pain and demetia? This resolution would deny them the right to arrange their affairs and chose the release of death in their own time, simply because they are not considered either old enough or sick enough to have the right to die.

What of those who find themselves growing older, yet still feel their lives have rewards for them? Do we not have the obligation to assure that such individuals might not be persuaded by ‘those closest’ to them that their lives are a burden to others and therefore choosing to live further would be selfish?

Euthanasia is an irreversible step. Any law legalizing it should be carefully buttressed with requirements that those in charge of finally accepting or denying a petition for death determine beyond a reasonable doubt that the individual does, indeed, desire this release for themselves, and that desire is not motivated by any none-permanent condition or for purposes of the profit, monetary or otherwise, of another person.

Additional arguments against legislation at the United Nations level could easily become redundant. We, the People of Marxist Freedonia, therefore cast a solid vote against the resolution that the U.N. legalize Euthanasia.

Euthanasia is legal in Marxist Freedonia, but only under strictly regulated circumstances. Marxist Freedonia will vote against this resolution.

We believe that this is a serious matter to be legislated only by Nations, according to the will of the people who chose to live in that Nation.

The resolution is worded so loosely that it could never stand up to any legal challenge, yet it leaves the door wide open for the killing of the elderly or ill for profit or to reduce expense. The choice of death should be that of the individual – however, due to the multiplicity of possible influences which might cause an individual to act against their own true desires, it must be a decision made over time with suitable counseling. ‘Those closest’ to an individual do not necessarily have that individual’s best interests as their primary goal. A desire for inheritance, for freedom from the individual’s influence within their life, or simply the cost of ongoing medical treatment, among multitudinous motives, might lead even a caring person to convince themselves that the individual’s death would be ‘for the best’.

Specific wording within the resolution is highly objectionable: “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.” In that it is not only ambiguous as to what age would be considered the cut-off age at which a human life is of lesser value, or when a person’s physical or emotional disabilities became sufficient burden to those around them that their life loses its inherent value. Furthermore, consideration must be given that people within a single nation, even more so people within a Region, and most especially the peoples throughout our world, for many reasons age physically at different rates, despite chronological passage of time. By this proposal, a hale and hearty man or woman of 80 is considered to have the same capabilities as a frail one whose mental capacity has largely degenerated. And both are considered to be less worthy of life than someone of 20 years who contributes nothing to the lives of others, and is miserable in their own life.

And what of the individual who, at 50, sees themselves already degenerating into pain and demetia? This resolution would deny them the right to arrange their affairs and chose the release of death in their own time, simply because they are not considered either old enough or sick enough to have the right to die.

What of those who find themselves growing older, yet still feel their lives have rewards for them? Do we not have the obligation to assure that such individuals might not be persuaded by ‘those closest’ to them that their lives are a burden to others and therefore choosing to live further would be selfish?

Euthanasia is an irreversible step. Any law legalizing it should be carefully buttressed with requirements that those in charge of finally accepting or denying a petition for death determine beyond a reasonable doubt that the individual does, indeed, desire this release for themselves, and that desire is not motivated by any none-permanent condition or for purposes of the profit, monetary or otherwise, of another person.

Additional arguments against legislation at the United Nations level could easily become redundant. We, the People of Marxist Freedonia, therefore cast a solid vote against the resolution that the U.N. legalize Euthanasia.

Legalizing euthanasia is a bad idea, and I am firmly against it becoming a law. I keep on hearing all of this "dying with dignity" stuff. What's the dignity in giving up on life? If you were fighting till the end, trying to live for as long as possible, not willing to give up, and then dying, that would be dying with dignity. Having a doctor injecting chemicals into you to "ease your suffering" is not, and that is exactly what euthanasia is. There is no dignity in giving up. As I have often heard many people say, "Suicide is a permanant solution to a temporary problem," and 'assisted suicide' is no different. I am going to drop out of the UN if this resolution passes, and, unfortunately, as of right now, it looks like it will.

My nation, personally, does not agree with eutanasia. We do not believe in the deliberate killing in an ill patient. Also, this is not a decision that should be made by the UN. I believe that euthanasia should be legalized by seperate nations rather than forcing a law of this caliber on other unwilling nations.

If this law is passed, I may be forced to resign from the UN so that my nation would not have to follow such a harsh law.

My nation, personally, does not agree with eutanasia. We do not believe in the deliberate killing in an ill patient. Also, this is not a decision that should be made by the UN. I believe that euthanasia should be legalized by seperate nations rather than forcing a law of this caliber on other unwilling nations.

If this law is passed, I may be forced to resign from the UN so that my nation would not have to follow such a harsh law.

As others have pointed out, there is already a game issue about legalizing euthanasia. So what's the point of having a UN resolution about it, too? If the resolution passes, it will permanently reverse the choices of all those nations who chose not to legalize it when they received the issue.

I also resent the cheap sentimental tear-jerking in the resolution itself, designed to sway people emotionally into voting Yes. Such a touchy, emotional subject deserves to be decided on the basis of each individual nation's conscience, not decided for them by a crowd of other nations. This issue encroaches far too heavily on the right of individual nations to decide for themselves, not to mention (as others have also pointed out) that it has large enough loopholes to fly a 747 through.

My nation actually supports voluntary euthanasia, but I'm voting No on this resolution and I urge all of you to do the same.

Edit: fixing typos.

Damn, I only hit "Submit" twice -- how'd it get posted three times? Sorry... :oops:

"Nothing to see here, folks, just move along..."

I just refuse to support these poorly written resolutions.

First that anti-popups one, now this? Pass. My vote is negative. I'll reconsider when this comes up again AND it's written well.

Legalizing euthanasia is a bad idea, and I am firmly against it becoming a law. I keep on hearing all of this "dying with dignity" stuff. What's the dignity in giving up on life? If you were fighting till the end, trying to live for as long as possible, not willing to give up, and then dying, that would be dying with dignity. Having a doctor injecting chemicals into you to "ease your suffering" is not, and that is exactly what euthanasia is. There is no dignity in giving up. As I have often heard many people say, "Suicide is a permanant solution to a temporary problem," and 'assisted suicide' is no different. I am going to drop out of the UN if this resolution passes, and, unfortunately, as of right now, it looks like it will.

You've obviously never had to watch someone dying of a dehibilitating disease. Sometimes people dying of a terminal illness get to the point where it's just too painful to go on. Sometimes their will gives out and they fade away, and sometimes they ask for help. Whether you think it is moral to provide that assistance (what this resolution is about), looking down on people who "give up", as if it was the easy way out, is just horrible. The dignity isn't in the act of suicide itself, it's that you get to maintain what little you have left in the hearts and minds of loved ones who remember you as closer to what you once were. What's so great about fighting on "as long as possible" when those extra seconds are draining and horrific for you and your family? I hope it's a decision I never have to make, but I don't want my daughter's last memory of me to be coughing up blood.

And that quote refers to people killing themselves because they're depressed, hence the "temporary problem" part. That's not what assisted suicide is, and nobody has ever argued it should be applied in that case.

Legalizing euthanasia is a bad idea, and I am firmly against it becoming a law. I keep on hearing all of this "dying with dignity" stuff. What's the dignity in giving up on life? If you were fighting till the end, trying to live for as long as possible, not willing to give up, and then dying, that would be dying with dignity. Having a doctor injecting chemicals into you to "ease your suffering" is not, and that is exactly what euthanasia is. There is no dignity in giving up. As I have often heard many people say, "Suicide is a permanant solution to a temporary problem," and 'assisted suicide' is no different. I am going to drop out of the UN if this resolution passes, and, unfortunately, as of right now, it looks like it will.

You've obviously never had to watch someone dying of a dehibilitating disease. Sometimes people dying of a terminal illness get to the point where it's just too painful to go on. Sometimes their will gives out and they fade away, and sometimes they ask for help. Whether you think it is moral to provide that assistance (what this resolution is about), looking down on people who "give up", as if it was the easy way out, is just horrible. The dignity isn't in the act of suicide itself, it's that you get to maintain what little you have left in the hearts and minds of loved ones who remember you as closer to what you once were. What's so great about fighting on "as long as possible" when those extra seconds are draining and horrific for you and your family? I hope it's a decision I never have to make, but I don't want my daughter's last memory of me to be coughing up blood.

And that quote refers to people killing themselves because they're depressed, hence the "temporary problem" part. That's not what assisted suicide is, and nobody has ever argued it should be applied in that case.

Earlier today, a joint session of the NW Houston congress passed the following resolution:

INASMUCH as it is generally agreed that all citizens are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, being the rights to life, liberty and property, and

INASMUCH as the 'right to die' is nowhere mentioned, and

INASMUCH as life, being granted to each individual citizen by said Creator, is a gift, and deemed to be retractable only at the will of said Creator, and

INASMUCH as the taking of any human life is illegal,

BE IT RESOLVED that the people of the Republic of Northwest Houston do this day, in congress, urge the Texas Regional UN Delegate to vote 'NO' on the proposed UN resolution legalizing euthanasia.

* * * ARE YOU ALL BLIND * * *

THERE IS ALREADY A N.S. ISSUE TO DEAL WITH THIS TOPIC:

THERE IS ALREADY A ISSUE DEVOTED TO THE MANAGEMENT OF THIS SOCIAL AND ETHICAL QUESTION, HOW MANY TIMES DO I AS WELL AS OTHER HAVE TO POINT THIS OUT, VOTE NO, THIS IS A PROPOSAL WE DO NOT NEED ! ! !

A Rep of Komokom, nearing the end of his tether.

I think euthenasia is a good idea and can be very humane, but the resolution is not specific enough. It needs to specify the methods of euthenasia that are acceptable, and also that a licensed medical professional must confirm that the person will not ever recover, or at least that they have an extremely low chance of recovery. Without these two specifications, euthenasia could get out of control.

look i also believe that the boy was wronged by killing his mother as she wished :!: But if we look at it form a religious point of view (my country is based on religious morals and the morals of my self) we must take in consideration that the Bible states that thou shalt not kill. :!: so there for how can this be a right act if we are not suposed to kill. i must say this though. If your mother asked you to put her out of her miesry cause she was going to die what would you do. :? now many of you now r rolling your eyes :roll: and are going of course i would kill my mother, or would you. would you actually do that. you not the desies or life threating situatuion would be the cause of her death. and would you have the guts to kill the person who has watched over you and have taken care of you for practically your whole life :?: i say to you know we must not pass this bill cause it will lead to peopel foraging these offical documents saying it is ok kill me. and then killing people getting away with muder wich is something the People's Republic of Djibouti Djibouti will not stand for. this is just asking for more crime and for more muderers on the loose who have found a way to slide past the system this is something we do not want so i say vote aginst this Euthenasia proposal and don't make muder leagal :!: :!: :!: :!:
I in real life have a life threating desease and wouldn't trade it for the world because i believe God has given it to me for a reason. Even if i was to ask to be killed i wouldn't want anyone to do it. yes it can be hard to bare at times. I want to go at my own time when God wants me to and when he feels that my work here is done!!!! i will not i now way shape or form support this bill or proposal and that is that :!:

I will say that many of these may have been mentioned before me or elsewhere, however, I want to bring them up in together in one coherent post. That said, the delegates of the Rogue Nation of Bloody Rogues denounce this resolution for several reasons, the least of which is the vague, superfluous writing style that leaves much in question and virtually reduces "The Perfect Murder" to an inanely simple exercise in paperwork. The ease in which a person could convince a doctor to "euthanise" their relatives is blatantly obvious through all the loopholes that perforate the proposal, and that alone is reason enough to disqualify this resolution from ever passing.

Furthermore, this writing style included the aforementioned hypothetical sob story, which, while quite touching, is COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY out of place in a formal UN proposal. What's more, a similar heartbreaker could be written about 15 grandmothers in a nursing home whose caretaker decided one day that he was done trying to care for the old ladies and signed their euthanasia papers, condemning them to death for NO REASON other than the caretaker's personal convenience. Possibly, if this story had been included in the resolution, the voters wouldn't be so eager to approve it. The story's sole purpose is to put a NEGATIVE spin on health care for the elderly, and engender support from where it might not have come from otherwise.

Next, for an organisation that is supposedly secular, inclusive, and utterly seperated from interfering with religion, the UN is trying to pass a dangerously restrictive proposal that violates the codes of the vast majority of religions worldwide, thereby forcing the views of the UN upon people who are supposedly free to worship however they choose, or upon nations who have adopted a state religion, which discredits the leadership of those nations and encourages unrest: if the governments are cowed by the UN and shown to lack power, it is highly likely that opposition parties or subversive elements will be able to gain support and capitulate the government. Then, the UN might have cleared its conciense of the suffering comatose, but it would need to clear its conciense of the potential MILLIONS that would die in the revolutionary wars that could spring up. Some may say that this is overly pessimistic: to those I reply, religion is a more powerful force than you might imagine. Thousands of conflicts, millions of lives, and billions of dollars have all been based upon religious disagreements in the past, and a government deemed too weak to stand for itself and preserve its own religion would have, and still will, quickly lose the trust of the masses it depends upon for its power. We, as delegates of the UN, do NOT want to allow something like this to happen.

As if this weren't enough, we now move on to the secular ethics of the resolution. Many nations, while not strictly supporting a religion or opposing the concept, have serious qualms about using doctors, who pledge to PRESERVE the life of their patients, to kill those who want to die, or even worse, kill those whose relatives say that they wish to die. Again, forcing ethical beliefs upon nations is almost as unjust as forcing religious ones upon them, and while it is highly unlikely that ethical beliefs will trigger wars, one major side effect will be a drastic drop in UN membership as all the countries who oppose this resolution bail out, in order to prevent this calamity from befalling them. The loss of many UN members would only serve to tip the scales more drastically, and the remaining members would soon see waves of new resolutions further limiting the ethical and religious beliefs of countries passing through these esteemed halls. This CANNOT be allowed to happen.

Finally, if this resolution passes, it marks the beginning of a new era in UN history. This would be the first time where a nation's political, social, ethical, and religious beliefs are dictated by the UN, and while it may not appear to be so serious now, it will be in several years when the UN dictates the size of your army, the standard weapon of your police, how many schools per 1000 sq. km. of land you must have, ect. This kind of policy-making is best left to the individual nations themselves, and, lo and behold, it's a NationStates issue. Therefore, since every nation gets the chance to decide for themselves if euthanasia is legal or not, why does it matter to them if their neighbors allow it? I remind the readers that PASSING the resolution FORCES everyone to allow euthanasia, however, REJECTING the resolution allows everyone to DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES on the issue of euthanasia: in other words, rejecting the resolution does not mean that euthanasia is banned in all nations.

Therefore, I encourage anyone and everyone to vote against this and campaign against this. The peoples' rights and the nations' sovreignety are at stake. The Rogue Nation of Bloody Rogues casts its 10 votes against this proposal, and encourages all who read this to follow suit.

I agreed with the proposal up until the part about letting others decide. If someone has not previously signed something that said that they would not want, for example, to continue living on a respirator in an unconscious state, then I don't think that relatives should be able to make this decision for them. Not only could it result in unwillful killing of a patient, but also greedy family members waiting for inheritance might complicate matters in a malicious way.

All,

Lumpy Nuts is opposed to this resolution. If we are pasionate about killing it, we should get the regional delegates to vote against it.

I have read many posts on both sides on the issue and I cannot find a way to possibly in any way support it. Besides my religious objections to it, I also have many legal reservations as well. There is too much grey area concerning who makes the final choice, and how qualified they are to make such a decsion or if they are making the choice in the best intrest in mind of those who affected, both the dying and those close to the victim. Also the possiblities for in famliy fighting over who got to make the choice when others may have seen that it wasn't truely neccesary to end the person's life then. The slope in which we step onto and we allow ourselves to make the choice if another's life is worth living. I firmly believe that all life is worth living, no matter how bad it could be. I must, however, commend those who wrote the proposal, for their attention to every small matter which may concern the issue at hand, but their is still to much left un-settled and a strong religious background to contend with.

Allowing another person--relative or not--to decide if someone will die is incorrect. Miracles or whatever one wants to call them happen all the time. We cannot just summarily decide to kill someone because they are costing us money. Pull the plug on someone if they are not going to survive, but if one is going to stay alive while non-communicative why should we kill them. I do not believe one person here wants to be killed without their permission.

The Dominion of Akalailian States is for this issue.

What it boils down to is a citizen's right to choose. This gives the citizen power over their life, not putting it in the hand of a complete stranger. While this stranger may know what should be done to save that person's life, he has no way of telling what that person wants, and that is most important. The citizens must be happy. We cannot tell them exactly what to do, it is our job to guide them, to provide suggestions and services, and hope, for their sake, that they make the right choice. But the government has no say as to whether or not you can die.

Folks, even without looking at the spiritual aspect of this, commen sense declares that we not support it. For pete's sake what if it is a relative that hates you and you are out, they can kill you. We are not talking about pulling a plug and dying naturally. We are talking about what we do to convicted murderers, killing people through non-natural means.

Please bug all of your regional members about this.

OOC (or is that IC?): Let's create a Logan's Run Utopia and recycle our citizens when they reach the age of thirty!

Hang on, I'm gonna change my vote to a YES!!!

Only young, virulent people will populate my nation from now on.

If they were virulent, Euthanasia wouldn't be necessary. lol :D

P.S. Abortion.

After reading all four pages of this post (hmm... thanks to Nationstates my speed reading skills have proportionately increased :D) I see little reason to support this bill.

First of all, I was never in support of euthanasia. I do believe it to be murder. Now, if the person is asking to be killed, we must evaluate whether that person is in a state of clinical depression DUE to their chronic illness and therefore considered mentally incapable of making formal, legal decisions for themselves.

Second of all, I am against a legal document that begins with an emotional tear-jerker. This kind of strategy, though appropriate for propoganda films and other such media, has no place in a document that should be viewed through untainted eyes. By including this story, it introduces a strong element of bias that is uncalled for.

Thirdly, the loose wording does seem to be a problem (as many have mentioned previously and which I recap.) Though many nations will choose to perhaps restrict the actions of those proporting the theory of Eugenics and Social Darwinism, other nations may very easily use this resolution as a method to supporting their Eugenicist agendas.

Please consider carefully before voting on the issue (and read the whole post, it is very enlightening -- in places at least.)

(...well, basically everything)

and Crystal Isle said, "Amen." 8)

one other thing, i know i've said this before (somewhere) but there are so many boards on this topic...

many of you who favor this argument site such things as "individual sovereignty." i would like to restate this in a way that i find more clear: you wish to eliminate the power of separate governments to govern their people and instead favor placing that power solely in the hands of the united nations. you desire there be no middle-man between the UN and the people; the UN would (eventually) make all decisions regarding laws. boil it all down, and what have you got?

a one-world government.

how dandy.

I think I am going to have to vote against this resolution for the simple matter that there are too many gaps where the situations are not defined clearly... a waiting period of 5-10 years is awfully vague; who determines who's closest to the person in question to make the final decision; and as was stated in an early post, who's to say when death is around the corner?

I do believe in assisted suicide, however, in order for me to vote in favor of this proposal, I would need an addition to the resolution such as a mandatory contract, to be signed at age 18, designating power of attorney and this contract would need to be kept updated, much like goverment issued IDs. Currently, I feel this proposal is just too loose...

His Royal Highness believes that this resolution if friviolous because each nation can decide this issue for themselves. Why should the UN stick its collective nose in a national issue? If someone was trying to prompt states to leave the UN, this was the issue to propose. His Royal Highness has not stated that we will leave the UN, but he strongly opposes this action by the UN BECASUE EACH NATION CAN DECIDE THIS ISSUE FOR ITSELF. Thank you for your time.

The States of Stephenson

I support euthanasia, but the terms in this resolution such as "those concerned" and "those closest to" are far too broad. I also do not like the idea that others may make the decision for a person.

I am voting against.

The Free Nation of Ivrin does not support euthanasia.

How do you define "suffering"? Where do you draw the line? Where do you stop?

Are AIDS patients "suffering" as their immune systems deteriorate? Are cancer patients "suffering" as the area of infection grows? Are those in a wheelchair "suffering" because they cannot walk? Are the blind "suffering" because they cannot see? Are those with learning disabilities "suffering" because they struggle with academics? Are those middle-aged people with acne "suffering" because they may be less likely to meet new people? Are those with allergies "suffering" because their noses run more than others?

At what shade of grey do you say 'enough is enough'? I implore you to vote against legalised euthanasia. Thank you.

-Branfendigaid, elected Speaker for the Free Nation of Ivrin

For those 4000+ that voted for this travesty, have you actually READ what is being said????


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

= we ALL are "certain to die"!!!! no human is immortal..but ok, assuming he means 'imminent death' for the phrase "certain to die"...so momma has cancer so lets put her sleep (since shes gunna die anyway) what about palliative care? are you so ignorant of medical treatments that the dying process as a human experience is so void of meaning? what of resolving ones life issues? of embracing others? of a life lesson for families that life is precious and often taken for granted? these only come about during the dying process

"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?"

= "religion as a barrier"??? wtf is that? if anything, most religions teach of the redemptive nature of suffering...as well you are confusing and lumping all 'suffering' in the same boat, which is wrong: suffering of a headache is one thing, the suffering of a parent with a child that is ill or hurting moves the person to embrace the suffering of another

= any parent will tell you that when their child is suffering from chicken pox and is crying, that parent's heart is torn and if they could take the pain they would: pain in and of itself is a vehicle for human kindness and empathy


Votes For: 4638

Votes Against: 3383

Once again, a "feel-good" resolution, using emotionalism to sell itself because logically it is devoid of any substance.

If this monstrosity passes, then ALL U.N. nations will be bound to a faulty and poorly thought out proposal.

How do we vote saying that this should be left to the National Level - not the UN.

If a country wants to legalize euthanasia, let them. If not, let them.

Do I vote NO or do I abstain?

People always bang on about doctors and the hippocratic oath. It is a complete waste of time. It does not say in there "Preserve life at all costs"

But it does say

that the doctor must teach for free and take in to his family the sons of the doctor who taught him.

Never perform surgery

Never give a treatment that will lead to an abortion

not give a deadly drug or prescribe a treatment that causes death.

If you want to take one you have to take them all, can you see medical schools not taking fees because it is in the oath, i think not

You're forgetting the most important part of it, "First, do no harm."

Show me one instance where euthanasia isn't harmful...

True, Witherspoon has a point there. I think that euthanasia is rather...harmful.

I couldn't DARE think the fact that children should kill their parents!

How do we vote saying that this should be left to the National Level - not the UN.

If a country wants to legalize euthanasia, let them. If not, let them.

Do I vote NO or do I abstain?

You vote no and tell all your friends and your regional delegate to do the same. If "no" votes win out over "yes" votes it means nothing changes. A "yes" vote victory means enforce the resolution. Abstain means you're going to let others decide. Please everybody tell everybody else to vote against, even if they are pro-euthanasia like me - this proposal is appallingly written.

The Dominion of Akalailian States is for this issue.

What it boils down to is a citizen's right to choose. This gives the citizen power over their life, not putting it in the hand of a complete stranger. While this stranger may know what should be done to save that person's life, he has no way of telling what that person wants, and that is most important. The citizens must be happy. We cannot tell them exactly what to do, it is our job to guide them, to provide suggestions and services, and hope, for their sake, that they make the right choice. But the government has no say as to whether or not you can die.

I am against the resolution even though I am supportive of the citizen's right to choose. The issue that I, and many other pro-euthanasia nations, have against this is A the appallingly vague wording B the fact that it legalises involuntary euthanasia without any safeguards specified - a relative, or even someone claiming to be an old friend, could very easily have you killed if you were paralysed and couldn't talk to say what you wanted. It all comes down to consent - I believe that if somebody cannot give consent, and they have not done so beforehand (e.g. a living will), they should not be actively euthanised (maybe passive is ok, not sure myself - if they're in a coma for 10 years, with little hope of recovery, then maybe pull the plug, as long as everyone's in agreement)

This is hardly a matter of international debate.. Surely the UN has better ways to use their time than killing the old and the weak.

To fellow members of the United Nations:

The RCO has voted against this measure. As a Catholic nation, its requirements are intolerable. Moreover, the UN should be (though it long ago ceased to be) an organization for resolving issues of international concern (i.e. the relations between states), not an arena for enforcing some nations' political proclivities upon all others.

We have already addressed these issues on the thread from Catholic Europe, but we believe that our critiques of the matter may more appropriately belong on this thread. Thus, I reprint some of that message below:

To the resolution itself. Leaving aside the potential difficulties involved in practice (i.e. grandma being pressed by family members to do the "right thing" by suicide in order to save the family the hassles of bills and stress), let us consider some of the other difficulties.

First, for all its pulling of heartstrings, the resolution shows a remarkably callous view of human life, especially in its sentence on "carers." Why focus on those who will die, when there are others who can be saved, asks the resolution. Ah. How charitable. Apparently being sickly or dying implies you are no longer really a person, merely an impediment, like some malfunctioning car. Why bother the living, after all? You're dead meat anyway. What a....compassionate view of the dying.

Second, there are the religious arguments against this procedure, which tends towards letting this issue be decided on the state level, not the international level. As there are others to address this, I will leave it to the side. Moreover, there are many who would accuse us of "forcing" our dogma upon them, so we shall spare them that inconvenience.

Third, there is the matter that it does not make sense internally. The resolution is worded in terms of choice. One should be able to choose to die, to go out with dignity. Well, let us consider the matter. Apparently, choice is of the utmost importance, indeed is a cornerstone of the idea of rights. If you cannot choose, your rights are being infringed. Fine. But euthanasia goes directly against the idea of choice. If we are supposed to leave out those dreaded dogmatic religious ideas, all we have is the temporal and mortal world. Once you die, you are no longer able to choose, and you cease to have the ability to exercise any rights. Therefore, the choice to commit euthanasia intrinsically means you are choosing to no longer have choice. It would rather be like making it a right to choose to sell yourself into total and abject slavery. You would be exercising a right to choose that, in the choosing, destroys any future ability to choose or exercise rights. A "right" to euthanasia is a choice that destroys the individual's choices, and a right that destroys all an individual's rights. A right that destroys itself and all other rights seems internally inconsistent.

Of course, if there is something after death, perhaps the situation would be different. But, then religious objections would have to be considered (and apparently some of the proponents of this bill dread the idea of considering that).

This resolution is not a matter for the UN. It is a matter for each state. If it passes, the RCO will sadly have to resign from this organization.

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

Lets impose euthanasia for all the people of the United Nations. It is only right that we dont let our people suffer in pain and if they want to end their lives let them as long as they are of sane mind.

Howth says YES

Euthanasia can only work where the patient is terminally ill and asks to die, either by living will or saying so. Families should not have the right to choose. Comas are a grey area, but if a living will stipulates that they should be allowed to die after spending x months in a coma, then it's all black and white once more.

:tantrum: I can't believe that as an organisation that is meant to bring people closer together the UN is even thinking about legalising euthanasia. If this resolution is passed it will be like the young people saying "We don't like old or sick people". This resolution needs to be defeated. If passed Letsbe Havingewe is going to resign from the UN and I hope all other like minded nations do the same.

King William I
Letsbe Havingewe

Euthanasia is too complex a concept to be dealt with across national boarders by an organisation like the UN. Cultural and religeous concerns in each Nation State should dictate the national adoption of Euthanasia Laws. The complexity of the issue is not done justice by this UN Resolution.

The UN would not undertake to define a religeon for all of its members. As such I doubt it is appropriate for it to tell its members how they should deal with the subject of death. It is after all one of the most mysterious, spiritual or religous questions of all. Do we have a soul? What happens to it when we die? Isn't that the basis of religeon?

Other than the Freedom of Worship (an issue that has more to do with Civil Rights) the UN has no place in religeous discussion. For it to engage in the prescription of religeous practice would be to deny Freedom of Worship, and the legislation of Euthenasia steps into that realm.

As such I urge you all to reconsider your opinions on this. Death has a different meaning in some religeons, and the variety of differing opinions cannot be dealt with summarily by the UN.

Euthanasia can only work where the patient is terminally ill and asks to die, either by living will or saying so. Families should not have the right to choose. Comas are a grey area, but if a living will stipulates that they should be allowed to die after spending x months in a coma, then it's all black and white once more.

EXACTLY which is one of the many reasons why EVERYBODY should be voting against this resolution. I swear pretty soon I might be driven to annoying delegates by telegram.

Lets impose euthanasia for all the people of the United Nations. It is only right that we dont let our people suffer in pain and if they want to end their lives let them as long as they are of sane mind.

Howth says YES

Have you read this thread through and appreciated the many problems in this appallingly written resolution which even impact on those of us who support the basic idea of personal choice to die? This resolution would allow people claiming to be your friend have you euthanised as long as you are temporarily paralysed and can't talk (and thus can't express your objection to the procedure), as well.

1) This is at least something the UN should be discussing (that hasn't happened for a while).

2) No matter how you feel about euthanasia the major flaw with this resolution is that they get too specific. Getting into the details (like how long a person has to be in a coma, etc.) means that the UN would then be getting into the internal affairs of the member nations. It should have said somthing like: members will pass laws permitting euthanasia (after clearly defining what they are permitting).

3) Balligomingo's feelings on this is, there is a place for euthanasia but it needs to be very narrowly defined. Just because someone is currently in a lot of pain doesn't mean you kill them. The way that Oregon has set things up is close to how we think it should be handled.

The Dominion of Akalailian States is for this issue.

What it boils down to is a citizen's right to choose. This gives the citizen power over their life, not putting it in the hand of a complete stranger. While this stranger may know what should be done to save that person's life, he has no way of telling what that person wants, and that is most important. The citizens must be happy. We cannot tell them exactly what to do, it is our job to guide them, to provide suggestions and services, and hope, for their sake, that they make the right choice. But the government has no say as to whether or not you can die.

I respectfully disagree: what this UN Resolution boils down to is the NATION'S right to choose. Note how virtually all nations who would support this resolution support euthanasia in their own countries, while those who wish to stop it are just about evenly split. The reason is apparent: this is NOT the UN's place to decide. The individual nations should have complete control of the issue of euthanasia: whether it's permitted or not, and if it is, how it is to be implemented.

Furthermore, pretending that the only aspect of this is the people's right to choose, then the UN is violating several rights to choose in favor of one. For the sake of being concise, I will simply list those violated rights: choice in religious beliefs, choice in ethics/personal values, choice in THEIR OWN RIGHT TO LIVE when they're old, choice to influence their government the way they choose (yes, this takes A LOT of voting power from the people: the citizens who voted against the euthanasia issue, that the vast majority of us have all seen, will now find that their votes have essentially been revoked by a foreign legislature), and others. Forcing this upon the people has a much more negative effect than one would initially think.

The Rogue Nation of Bloody Rogues still places its regional votes against the proposal, and calls upon all UN Member nations to:
A): Vote against this proposal immediately,
B): Convince their delegates to cast their votes against this, and
C): Campaign to other nations and stop this resolution.

The Queendom of Vicious Trollops must vote against this resolution for the following reasons:

A) This is not something that should be legislated on an international level. The UN would be overstepping national sovereignty.
B) The resolution outlines no process on how to regulate this so it is not grossly taken advantage of, which it certainly will be.
C) Some countries (slightly stepping into real world here) have things called living wills or "do not rescucitate" orders, which in some cases outline specific situations where a person does not wish to remain on life support or in other cases expressly forbids that they be put on life support. These documents are created when someone is certain to be of sound mind and not suffering yet.

But yet again, with that last reason, those things only exist in some countries, not all. A matter of national sovereignty. This is not a matter for the UN and should be voted against for that reason alone.

I am currently telegramming all the delegates who voted for the resolution with a letter designed not to persuade them that this isn't the UN's business, or that religions are being violated - if they voted for already, they probably disagree with those arguments - but instead pointing out all the loopholes and vaguenesses which should put more people against a resolution whose basic idea they support. This is the letter:

Dear UN delegate

I apologise for telegramming you like this, but I feel I really must object to your vote for the current resolution. I, perhaps like you, am pro-choice and agree that every individual should have the right to choose to die. However, this resolution allows many other things and is in fact full of loopholes!

The first problem is how vague and ambiguous the resolution is. It says "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." A conservative government could set that age to 1000 so that it applied to nobody, and life-threatening illness could be interpreted in any number of ways, because with almost all terminal illness, there is someone who has survived, and conversely, mild illnesses sometimes can kill.

"This would mean a legal document would be filled out by those concerned." Who is "concerned"? - this could mean anyone who had met the patient, it could mean his employers (they are concerned at losing a worker?), it could be anyone.

"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." - This is ridiculous - it says "if they're not ill, and can't make the decision themselves, it should be made by those closest to them". Why are we giving the option to relatives (or even strangers, or the agents of an unscrupulous government, claiming to be old friends) to euthanise anyone who is in good physical health but is unsure of the value of living life - e.g. if they were going through a bad spell of depression? Plus, again the age is vague. This could lead to the euthanising of depressed political dissidents under oppressive regimes!

In fact, do relatives have any right to have somebody euthanised when they can't and have not given consent? If there is no living will telling them to euthanise, the patient never said anything beforehand, and is now paralysed and can't get a message across, isn't it wrong to actively kill them?

This was the third time the author submitted this proposal. On the second time, which failed to gain enough approvals to come before the whole UN, several nations (some supporting the basic idea of the right to die), including myself, pointed out to the author the many problems in the proposal in this forum thread:
http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=111512&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0
When he submitted the proposal again, he followed none of our suggestions about the loopholes etc and simply put in the same text again. I pointed out what he had done in his new thread at http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=112669&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0
He ignored me, and did not admit what he had done.

Finally, instead of writing a specific proposal, the author has chosen to cynically exploit readers' emotions with a sob-story. Please, vote against this travesty and wait for a sensible, watertight, specific resolution which legalises euthanasia. One is in the works now and will soon be submitted as a proposal.

Actually this is turning out to be too much. I'm only doing those with 5 or more votes, after having gone through these:

Your---Mum [3], Sirkkoninia [4], Hampster Squared [17], Mohakti [3], Spon End [5], Landing [3], Phantoemia [9], United Draconis [2], Kalenstein [2], Schwabolia [5], Pecuniae [7], WWIIOL [2], Nenuial [9], Prosperous Prospects [2], Leppis [2], Easternmost Wasteland [30], Raaask [3], Roban [2], The Zoogie People [7], Kumba ya [4], The Westcountry [2], Lamia [4], DragonStryke [2], Jaguarion [3]

If anyone else wants to send the letter to the smaller delegates apart from these, please do!

The Most Serene Republic of Istahan has decided to change its vote on this issue. Previously, the Istahani had decided to vote for this resolution, as the Istahani believe in the right to die a dignified death. However, on repeated reading of the resolution, coupled with many of the arguments outlined within this topic, we have decided to vote against this resolution.

The Istahani realise that with only one vote it is but a small change, but have decided to try to make this difference.

Lemmingcus Meenicus Noted that Labrador was voting against this measure and ordered me to change my vote against to a vote supporting the measure.

I have done so.

All hail the great and powerful Lemmingcus Meenicus!

We are not worthy!
We are not worthy!
We are not worthy!
We are not worthy!
We are not worthy!

This is a terrible mistake! This cannot be allowed because every murder can be covered with this:
" POLICE HEADLINE 1
a 20 yearold ex-contract killer is acused for killing a buisnessman on the rise. His defence was: 'I found this man on the corner of this alley with a shot to the heart, I took him into the alley and shot him to take him out of his misery!'"
" POLICE HEADLINE 2
Young kidnapped girl found dead, wounds: internal bleedings from rape, slit throat, two men accused for murder. The first claimes to have found her on the street raped, he claims that she asked him to 'do' her for money with the specified sum of $20, he agreed, when he was done, his 'thing' was in blood and he fled out of horror, the second man claims to have found her like this and slit her throat to put her out of her misery."


Now, how does that sound?

well im happy for this resolution now all the criminals in my country can go around brutally mudering ppl after having them sign a piece of paper. The will surely engoy it. An as for all those happy suicidals that can end their life whithough it being displayed all over the news adn rest in piece withough actually having to leave anything but a signed piece of paper on their dest proclaming that they were mentaly ill and wanted to end the pain.

There also comes a time, in the case of someone in a coma, when it is apparent that the patient is not going to wake. We have the medical technology to determine this, in most cases.

Quite frankly, there is enough suffering in the world without causing to suffer those who have no chance of recovery.[/quote]

RUBBISH!!! WE DO NOT!! IT IS A VERY SUBJECTIVE ISSUE OPEN TO THE INTERPRETATION AND WHIMS OF THE ATTENDING STAFF! MY BROTHER WAS MURDERED AFTER THE STAFF TALKED MY VERY YOUNG BROTHER INTO PULLING THE PLUG ON MY OLDER BROTHER, THEY TOLD HIM HE WAS IN A VEGETATIVE STATE, THIS WAS TWO DAYS AFTER I HAD BEEN TALKING TO HIM IN HOSPITAL, WHEN HE WAS SUPPOSED TO HAVE BEEN IN A COMA!!
AS A DOCTOR I CAN CATEGORICALLY STATE THAT HE WAS NOT COMATOSE OR IN A VEGETATIVE STATE!!!!!