NationStates Jolt Archive


Euthanasia Amendment

13-01-2004, 20:02
Whereas the current Euthanasia Proposal has a few flaws, We have submitted an amendment to it and is as follows:

Euthanasia Amendment
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights Strength: Strong Proposed by: DragonWolve
Description: While the Legalization of Euthanasia is a most worthy endeavour, and should be considered by all, there must be more strict guidelines as to the decision to euthanize a loved one.

We, The Queendom of DragonWolve propose that the following guidelines should be enacted to ensure the rights of the people it involves:

1. Euthanasia should only be considered as an absolute last resort. All avenues of medical treatment must be explored, and all patients must have the opportunity to have 2 or more specialists confirm diagnosis.

2. Lack of insurance or money to pay for costly treatments cannot be an excuse to euthanize a person. All governments must make available specialists to all citizens, regardless of race, color, creed, sexual orientation or planet or galaxy of birth. No discrimination will be tolerated.

3. All citizens must fill out legal paperwork with an attorney stating their wishes in case of accident. A Living will should be mandated and filed with the local hospital and with the court. These living will will cover specific instances, such as cessation of brain activity, degree of brain injury and level of brain function. Any decisions regarding Euthanasia in the case of an accident must be based soley upon the damage to the brain. Loss of limbs or paralysis is not a valid reason for euthanasia.

4. In the case of a disease or illness, certain requirements must be met prior to euthanasia becoming an option.
A. Terminal Illness such as advanced cancer, Muscular Dystrophy, Advanced AIDS, must be present. all forms of treatment must be exhausted and 3 specialists in cancer research must conclude that all that can be done has been done.

B. In the case of Heart Attack or Stroke, brain function must be limited to that of sustaining basic life function. Basic life funtion is as follows: heart and lungs operate without aid, however, there is no response to pain, pleasure, heat or cold stimulii. If the patient is on a respirator and has no response to stimulii, euthanasia may be considered after a minimum of 6 months with no change.

5. If a patient has a life insurance policy that exceeds $100,000, the family must donate 20% of the paid insurance amount to the treating hospital (not the doctors) in order to help offset some of the cost and to enable others who are not as fortunate to obtain the same level of care. This is partially to prevent greedy family members from taking advantage of the patients position. Hospitals that recieve this money must utilize it to improve the quality of healthcare available or put it aside in a trust fund to help offest the needs of other patients who have no insurance.

I hope that no one is ever placed in a situation where they must make a choice, however, with these stipulations in place, it will ensure that no person is murdered.

Queen Whyte Wolf,
Sovereign Monarch of Dragonwolve
UN Delegate to Wolverovia
Catholic Europe
13-01-2004, 20:25
NO!!!!!

This is not what we need. This proposal need to be reversed not strengthened!
13-01-2004, 20:47
Greeting,

Your proposing amendement is interresting, however, The people of my country are against Euthanesia as the law right now, cause it says that we put people on Euthanesia not only for medical reason, but for different motive including old ages.

Euthanesia shall be only in last ressort when prolonging the life of a person is done mechanically. Exemple the brain of the person is no longer viaible, the person if she lives must uses a lung respirator for life and stay in bed for the rest of her/his life and has a living will stating she/he does not want extreme mesure taking on them.

As an exemple, a few years ago a member of my country was operated for a heart desease and survived 3 operations, she had a living will saying no extreme mesure. When the doctor said she would be for the rest of her life in a bed and connected to a mechanic lung, and where talking about cutting her legs cause of an insinuous infection. The familly asked that the Government respect the living will and let the patient dies by limiting her sufference.

The Governement of Ficelle agreed in a case like this to accept Euthanesia. When accepting this kind of Euthanesia we must consider the well being of the person we let die. Terminating a life is a real dilemma.

We have to remember we are talking about our country man and country woman and not animals when debating Euthenasia.

If we accept Euthenasia then we must wonder about dead penalty and suicide... Cause in both case we are talking about killing or let a person die.

So our governement is against Euthanesia as described in the UN Law project.

thanks