NationStates Jolt Archive

"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. "

Consider this. This resolution makes it possible to kill someone *without* their consent. And why say 5-10 years? Which is it 5 or 10?

This proposal currently has less than 60% support. It is, as I have said another nail in the UN's coffin. As the credibility of the UN continues in a downward spiral, one can only wonder what kind of lame proposals will be passed in the future.

Is there any sanctity to human life at all?

Does anyone see the difference between murder and suicide? This proposal clearly goes beyond promoting legalised suicide since it gives the right to kill someone without their consent.

And what does "over a certain age" mean? What is that age? 50?
Hey, here's a great idea let's kill everyone who is 50 or over! They're too old to have a right to life, correct?

What about those who are mentally ill? Should we kill all them too?
They don't have the ability to "make the decision themselves", correct?

I previously said that the only way I would promote euthanasia would be if it was exactly the same as suicide, I am very disappointed that this resolution got to the floor like this.

My nation is almost sure to resign if this is passed.

I'm in agreement with you on being against this proposal. It's a slippery slope to determine who can live or die. The Nazis used this same tactic to kill handicapped or mentally ill people. I urge members that have voted for this proposal to reconsider.

"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. "

Consider this. This resolution makes it possible to kill someone *without* their consent. And why say 5-10 years? Which is it 5 or 10?

This proposal currently has less than 60% support. It is, as I have said another nail in the UN's coffin. As the credibility of the UN continues in a downward spiral, one can only wonder what kind of lame proposals will be passed in the future.

Is there any sanctity to human life at all?

Does anyone see the difference between murder and suicide? This proposal clearly goes beyond promoting legalised suicide since it gives the right to kill someone without their consent.

And what does "over a certain age" mean? What is that age? 50?
Hey, here's a great idea let's kill everyone who is 50 or over! They're too old to have a right to life, correct?

What about those who are mentally ill? Should we kill all them too?
They don't have the ability to "make the decision themselves", correct?

Eli has cast the Capitalist Alliance's vote against this proposal. There may be a place for 'assisted suicide' but this resolution is too much like the system of state sponsored murder masquerading as 'euthanasia' policy in the Netherlands now.

... The Neutral Haven of Kamsaki is voting against this proposal, and... guess why? Once again, the wording of it has thrown us completely off from what may well have been an honest original intention but could so easily be abused by those such as the late Harold Shipman to create havoc among our people.

Firstly;

"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."
Life Threatening. Not terminal. Life threatening. The flu is life threatening when you have no access to medical care. A homeless person could come in and say "I'm gonna die of Influenza; kill me please; it's perfectly legal anyway." What the crap? It's not a medical decision, it's the person's choice, so the guy doesn't actually need to see a doctor at any point then? Guh?!?

The other thing;

"...If the person cannot make the decision themselves it would be made by those closest to them..."
Medical advice or not, this is giving the right to family members to... Slaughter their own f**king family. Young children may not be able to make the decision themselves, so, here's what we'll do. A Child of 6 months old gets the flu. The mother, sick of raising that damn child anyway, has the doctors kill him/her, because it's the right of the person closest to them to have their suffering ended.

And this resolution makes that perfectly legal, world-wide.

Regardless of what the intention of this resolution was, we cannot this to pass. We side with the honourable Athine on this issue, and our reasons for doing so are very similar.

I mean, seriously. Where the hell has the sanctity of life gone? When we allow this resolution to pass, we will be granting all sorts of people the view that it's fine to end life when stuff gets tough to deal with. Well, our nation has always felt that despite whatever troubles or pains we may go through, and no matter what our religious beliefs are, one thing we know for certain is that Life is a definite entity. We may not have another chance, so we cannot afford to let people waste theirs.

Most importantly, we do not want to provide any sort of legal loophole for Murder, which is exactly what this resolution, if passed, would do.

Catholic Europe totally agrees with the Spirit of Athines comments/posts.

This current proposal needs to be overturned and thrown into the UN rubbish bin.

The Kingdom of Schweinfurt refuses to support this proposal and will not obey it if it is passed. We will resign.

The Kingdom of Schweinfurt refuses to support this proposal and will not obey it if it is passed. We will resign.

Good. Catholic Europe is glad to see that another nation supports our stance.

Please do not resign. That will make it all the harder for those of us that are fighting this. Please do not resign!!!

Please do not resign. That will make it all the harder for those of us that are fighting this. Please do not resign!!!

Don't worry, I have now decided to stay in the UN, defy this bloodstained proposal and fight for it's reversal in all UN member nations.

Who would want to spend 10 in a coma, anyway?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

Go on... resign... the UN will miss you so very much. Way to act like a 3 year old.

I disagree with the non-voluntary euthanasia... but hey, what's a little assisted suicide in the face of all of humanities other issues? It's a crazy world.

Motorcycle Empty Heads applaud The Spirit of Athine
This resolution must not be passed

sorry about this but...

the best thing about being a human is the right to do what you want with your body. Therefore the "sanctity" of human life can only be kept if you give people the right to die when they want.

However, I think that this proposal needs re-wording - it should be the person who's life will be ended who makes the choice, not an "expert" who does not know or truely care about the person, and who is open to corruption....

but then again, what if the person is in no state to actually ask for euthanasia? Won't the people who know this ill person know what they want best? If we reject the proposal, we will be preventing those in the above situation from actually doing anything to help.

ill leave you to think about it. i'm still to be convinced by either argument - I'm for voluntary euthanasia, but I think that this proposal does not address the problem properly

Wookumbumble

sorry about this but...

the best thing about being a human is the right to do what you want with your body. Therefore the "sanctity" of human life can only be kept if you give people the right to die when they want.

However, I think that this proposal needs re-wording - it should be the person who's life will be ended who makes the choice, not an "expert" who does not know or truely care about the person, and who is open to corruption....

but then again, what if the person is in no state to actually ask for euthanasia? Won't the people who know this ill person know what they want best? If we reject the proposal, we will be preventing those in the above situation from actually doing anything to help.

ill leave you to think about it. i'm still to be convinced by either argument - I'm for voluntary euthanasia, but I think that this proposal does not address the problem properly

Wookumbumble

What you say is reason enough to vote 'no'.

Heres my problem with the bill, it doesn't define when a person is unable to make the choice. So who decides, the goverment? Ex. Goverment decides that since you want to live you are "unable" to make the descision because of conflict of interest. Now your life is not your choice anymore, state-sponsered murder anyone?

To be for or against is a mute arguement at this point! The wording and legality of who is authorized to make the decision, appropriate age and many other items in question in this proposal should warrant a no vote.

As UN members we must strive to bring proposals to vote that leave less room for misunderstandings. It is also imperative that we all vote what we think is in the best interest of the world. We might approve of the idea of a proposal, but unless it is written in a solid manor, disaster is sure to follow. Please keep in mind that the issue at hand is also an issue brought before each nation individually! Nations have already made choices on this issue. If this is to pass, what becomes of the choice those nations have already made. Will they be forced to withdraw from the UN and/or Forced to withdraw from regions for non-compliance? There is more at stake here than just the proposed issue! It presents a legal and political nightmare!

The Free Land of Magicality of the North Pacific has voted NO on this UN proposal!

It should be revised that the nations who do not support this don't have to abide. I don't support it.

take a peek at the proposals thing, revision of this issue is sitting there with very few endorsements. It only allows euthenasa after the person concerned has expressed a wish to die and talked to a solicitor etc. and it makes room for domestic law to intervein. Nice to know someone's reading these discussions. I still won't vote for it though.

(pls excuse my poor spelling/grammer)

There's an ammended version of this proposal in the pipe line allowing assisted suicide only if the patient has it in writing and has been witnessed etc. Still won't vote for it.

Note: most coma patients have their support switched off before five years anyway by the next of kin on medical advice from doctors. In most countries you can have a living will with a 'no extreme measures' clause wich is effectivly assisted suicide.