Celdonia
13-01-2004, 11:37
I originally posted this on my regional forum.
I have concerns with the following passages:
Everyone over a certain age or with a life-threatening illness should be given the right to decide whether, in such a situation, they want to live on for as long as possible, or die with a little dignity left intact. This would mean a legal document would be filled out by those concerned. This would ensure that it is not a medical decision, but the patient's choice.
It is not Celdonian policy that mere age should be a determining factor in whether a life be terminated, and a life-threatening ilness is certainly not a terminal illness (influenza can be a life threatening illness).
It is also policy that all such decisions as to when a life be terminated are considered on an evaluation of the patients quality of life, and in the light of medical advice.
In the case of a freak situation in which a person has no serious illness or is over a certain age, if the person cannot make the decision themselves it would be made by those closest to them on the basis of professional medical advice.
Also if the patient is in a coma, 5-10 years should be waited until those closest to them make a decision.
Good god, this notion horrifies me. It is unclear as to whether such a situation includes the patient having made a declaration or not (though I suspect not) and that mere age (again) is regarded as being a factor.
As for patients in a coma, such decisions should be made on a case by case basis. To put a deadline (no matter how generous) on recovery is absurd.
Why should carers use up time on those certain to die, when this time could be spent with those with a chance of life?
Grossly insensitive.
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?
A banal and simple minded argument.
In Celdonia euthanasia is legal under certain circumstances, but we feel that this proposal has not been thought out clearly enough and could be, in some nations, a recipe for disaster. The checks and balances to prevent abuse are simply not there, and no policy legalising euthanasia should be introduced to a nation that has not already developed a thourough operating framework for its implementation.
I urge members to reject the proposal.
Celdonian delegate to the UN.
I have concerns with the following passages:
Everyone over a certain age or with a life-threatening illness should be given the right to decide whether, in such a situation, they want to live on for as long as possible, or die with a little dignity left intact. This would mean a legal document would be filled out by those concerned. This would ensure that it is not a medical decision, but the patient's choice.
It is not Celdonian policy that mere age should be a determining factor in whether a life be terminated, and a life-threatening ilness is certainly not a terminal illness (influenza can be a life threatening illness).
It is also policy that all such decisions as to when a life be terminated are considered on an evaluation of the patients quality of life, and in the light of medical advice.
In the case of a freak situation in which a person has no serious illness or is over a certain age, if the person cannot make the decision themselves it would be made by those closest to them on the basis of professional medical advice.
Also if the patient is in a coma, 5-10 years should be waited until those closest to them make a decision.
Good god, this notion horrifies me. It is unclear as to whether such a situation includes the patient having made a declaration or not (though I suspect not) and that mere age (again) is regarded as being a factor.
As for patients in a coma, such decisions should be made on a case by case basis. To put a deadline (no matter how generous) on recovery is absurd.
Why should carers use up time on those certain to die, when this time could be spent with those with a chance of life?
Grossly insensitive.
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?
A banal and simple minded argument.
In Celdonia euthanasia is legal under certain circumstances, but we feel that this proposal has not been thought out clearly enough and could be, in some nations, a recipe for disaster. The checks and balances to prevent abuse are simply not there, and no policy legalising euthanasia should be introduced to a nation that has not already developed a thourough operating framework for its implementation.
I urge members to reject the proposal.
Celdonian delegate to the UN.