NationStates Jolt Archive

Here is a very simple non-religious, yet common sense, objection to the Euthenasia bill. In this bill we are allowing another being to make a decision of life or death about taking our own life. Whether one is for or against Euthanasia the clause that allows the closest of kin to make the life ending decision is crazy. What if one is in a situation where their kin does not like them, tough luck on waking from this one. The wording is vague and that should not be. At what point does life termination become an option. Sounds like a rich relative could pay off a doc to get anyone killed they want.

The decision to pull the plug and allow a person to die naturally can be decided by closest of kin because that person would die without assistance, but to order that a person breathing on their own be struck down and killed is a little harsh.

We are making a decision to allow kin or friends to do to us what we do to convicted murderers. Also how are we going to kill these people, heinous and painful methods could be used and be legal (because oft times at various times a person in coma is lucid and aware of his surroundings all though not omnisciently aware he can feel pain and here voices).

Please vote no on this issue and please bug your region to do the same. Thanks
Walt

We agree with the first paragraph.

I just believe this is a national descision, not a UN one.

Agreed it is a national issue, thus we have to defeat it.

Yeah, but it won't... unless the big delegates (pacifics) vote no...

Yes I agree - it's a decision individual nations must make for their own country not to try and make it a majority decision. What if you disagree yet you find that the majority has voted 'yes'? You'd be angry it was made mandatory in your nation for starters...
Furthermore what if the person whom relatives and doctors found to be 'better off dead' takes a massive 180 and recovers most excellently? Just think how guilty, how stupid you would of felt thinking about killing them because it looked bad.

Jaua basically agrees with this common-sense post and with the others that reinforce the idea that national legislation shou prevail on this matter.

By the way, this were the two main arguments that made our vote change to AGAINST.

Yeah, but it won't... unless the big delegates (pacifics) vote no...

This is accurate, but unfortunately it seems that there are enough small delegates voting "yes" that the vote will remain tight. I noticed that at least The twoslit experiment (of the North Pacific, I believe, but perhaps the South) has voted no, with its over 700 votes, and still the "no" side lags. This is most disturbing.

Oh, as if there was any doubt, the RCO is strongly AGAINST the current resolution for multiple reasons, including those stated well by Cochranstan.

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

If the vote doesn't change soon, it will be necessary to telegram UN delegates. And not just the big ones, all of them, because it looks like its all small delegacies (3/4/5 votes) voting for.

Euthanasia isnt allowing someone else to make the decision, it's allowing someone else to end your life after you have made the decision. If the proposal says otherwise then it is a incorrect definition of euthanasia.

Euthanasia isnt allowing someone else to make the decision, it's allowing someone else to end your life after you have made the decision. If the proposal says otherwise then it is a incorrect definition of euthanasia.

Well then the proposal has an incorrect definition, because it not only allows, but enforces this law:

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.

And that objection doesn't even take into account the staggerring ambiguity.

Euthenasia is the act of assisting someone in suicide, not going and killing a person without their permission.

Catholic Europe totally supports this stance and suggests suh a stance is adopted by all UN members.

The Kingdom of Schweinfurt will not recognize this proposal whether the rest of the UN does or not. We will leave the UN if necessary. I do not wish to, and hope such an action is needed.

The Kingdom of Schweinfurt will not recognize this proposal whether the rest of the UN does or not. We will leave the UN if necessary. I do not wish to, and hope such an action is needed.

If it is passed we could announce our defiance of it.

Perhaps we could all band together and get it's removal.

my only major objection to this is in the paragraph:

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 paragraph is worded in such a manner that it could be interpreted to mean that you can be killed for being old. Also, Life could be defined as a deadly illness; once you've got it, it's just a matter of time until you die.
With these facts in mind, Dwarfmagia calls for the proposal to be rewritten, with the relevant clauses better defined. unjtil such a time comes to pass, we must, reluctantly, vote no.

I like my cushy thrown. You can't have it just because you want to "put me out of my misery"

I like my cushy thrown. You can't have it just because you want to "put me out of my misery"

There is always the “I brought you into this world, I can take you out.”

I personally think that Euthanasia should be legalised because its not ETHICAL at all to NOT let someone choose to die because they have an illness that isn't going to get any better. If a person chooses to die and asks their next of kin or someone who is related to them to give the hospital consent to pull the plug then they should do it because the hospital is being asked to.
If a person who is related to the patient pulls the plug and ends the patients life because he/her is told to do it by the patient then its very wrong to send that person to prison for killing the patient. The patient wants to die for heavens sake and its his/her choice whether to live or die and not someone elses. Its just very unethical to not let someone to choose to live or die and to be fair it would taint the human race.

The Kingdom of Schweinfurt will not recognize this proposal whether the rest of the UN does or not. We will leave the UN if necessary. I do not wish to, and hope such an action is needed.

If it is passed we could announce our defiance of it.

Perhaps we could all band together and get it's removal.

Agreed...see my other board:
http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=114908

The citizens of Bloody Mindness wonder what the problem is .

Surley our citizens who decide to take the drastic option of ending their lives deserve to have their decission respected, they also by the way have the right to name their next of kin (NOK)... We are sensible people and usually dont name the uncle that "hates" us our NOK but choose a loving relative instead to be NOK

Some of our citizens however, for various reasons, do disagree with the proposal, we respect their rights also.

This proposal will not affect them, because obviously they wont be choosing the option....
For these reasons we vote yes to the proposal, Its all about personal freedom to choose, this proposal does not make Euthanasia mandatory
instead it allows the patients and their famillies , in most occasions to stop treatment and allow a citizen to die with dignity at a time of they choose.

I point out again...
This proposal does not make Euthanasia mandatory, but a legal choice for the individual.

I personally think that Euthanasia should be legalised because its not ETHICAL at all to NOT let someone choose to die because they have an illness that isn't going to get any better. If a person chooses to die and asks their next of kin or someone who is related to them to give the hospital consent to pull the plug then they should do it because the hospital is being asked to.
If a person who is related to the patient pulls the plug and ends the patients life because he/her is told to do it by the patient then its very wrong to send that person to prison for killing the patient. The patient wants to die for heavens sake and its his/her choice whether to live or die and not someone elses. Its just very unethical to not let someone to choose to live or die and to be fair it would taint the human race.

It doesn't matter what you believe.. this proposal will legalize murder. I mean, read it carefully, it's too ambiguous.

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

As head of my government, I feel that I would have ultimate say in the matters within my country. Either that, or we can place it on a ballet and people can vote on whom to "euthanize."