NationStates Jolt Archive

Apparently, Euthanasia is supposed to help those who wish to end their misery. what you MUST realise is that this can easily be ABUSED and TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF. what if a corrupt and miserly man has a very rich older relative and wishes to steal his riches or take over his business by making deals with medical professionals to agree that the relative should be relieved of his/her misery? A son could easily forge a document to have his mother killed!! I beg you all to THINK TWICE before enacting this horrible Euthanasia!!

euthanesia shall be used only in extreme case of real sick people not as a kind of abuse and death penalty

euthanesia shall be used only in extreme case of real sick people not as a kind of abuse and death penalty

But thanks to loopholes in the resolution, this isn't actually enforcable. It leaves a frightening amount of room for abuse, in fact, in addition to its interfering with national sovereignty. Is this not an issue for individual nations to decide? It is purely internal, not an international affair.

My own mother was diagnosed with inoperable brain and lung cancer, and contemplated ending it, and , as horrible as it sounds, I would have helped her. Does this make me a bad person? i only hated to see her in such mental and physical pain. The only people that this law would apply to would be those with a diagnosis of a terminal disease. My choice was taken out of my hands by nature, as my mother died in her sleep before she was totally incapacitated. :(
zigman AKA Hagen Bonecracker

My own mother was diagnosed with inoperable brain and lung cancer, and contemplated ending it, and , as horrible as it sounds, I would have helped her. Does this make me a bad person? i only hated to see her in such mental and physical pain. The only people that this law would apply to would be those with a diagnosis of a terminal disease. My choice was taken out of my hands by nature, as my mother died in her sleep before she was totally incapacitated. :(
zigman AKA Hagen Bonecracker

My own mother was diagnosed with inoperable brain and lung cancer, and contemplated ending it, and , as horrible as it sounds, I would have helped her. Does this make me a bad person? i only hated to see her in such mental and physical pain. The only people that this law would apply to would be those with a diagnosis of a terminal disease. My choice was taken out of my hands by nature, as my mother died in her sleep before she was totally incapacitated. :(
zigman AKA Hagen Bonecracker

So then, based on a belief springing from your personal experience, you would legalize euthanasia in your nation. But does that mean you have a right to force that belief on all UN member nations?

euthanesia shall be used only in extreme case of real sick people not as a kind of abuse and death penalty

I would have to agree with this. Euthanesia should never be abused, death penalty, or even for someone in a coma for a long time.

My own mother was diagnosed with inoperable brain and lung cancer, and contemplated ending it, and , as horrible as it sounds, I would have helped her. Does this make me a bad person? i only hated to see her in such mental and physical pain. The only people that this law would apply to would be those with a diagnosis of a terminal disease. My choice was taken out of my hands by nature, as my mother died in her sleep before she was totally incapacitated. :(
zigman AKA Hagen Bonecracker

So then, based on a belief springing from your personal experience, you would legalize euthanasia in your nation. But does that mean you have a right to force that belief on all UN member nations?

Yes it does, if you are a UN member you MUST obey UN rules or withdraw from the organization.

My own mother was diagnosed with inoperable brain and lung cancer, and contemplated ending it, and , as horrible as it sounds, I would have helped her. Does this make me a bad person? i only hated to see her in such mental and physical pain. The only people that this law would apply to would be those with a diagnosis of a terminal disease. My choice was taken out of my hands by nature, as my mother died in her sleep before she was totally incapacitated. :(
zigman AKA Hagen Bonecracker

So then, based on a belief springing from your personal experience, you would legalize euthanasia in your nation. But does that mean you have a right to force that belief on all UN member nations?

Yes it does, if you are a UN member you MUST obey UN rules or withdraw from the organization.

You say this as if to point out something I haven't realized. This resolution HAS NOT YET PASSED. By voting to pass this resolution, you are pushing your beliefs on hundreds of other nations, impinging on their right to govern their own internal affairs. Sorry, I just don't see what new information is presented in your "argument." Is the "yes" in response to the question of whether they have a right to force their beliefs on others? Because thats NOT what the UN exists for; it exists to govern INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS such as maintaining/establishing peace between nations, not to govern the individual people--that is what the GOVERNMENTS are for. This resolution creates a law affecting the PEOPLE, not the NATIONS, in this sense.

Apparently, Euthanasia is supposed to help those who wish to end their misery. what you MUST realise is that this can easily be ABUSED and TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF. what if a corrupt and miserly man has a very rich older relative and wishes to steal his riches or take over his business by making deals with medical professionals to agree that the relative should be relieved of his/her misery? A son could easily forge a document to have his mother killed!! I beg you all to THINK TWICE before enacting this horrible Euthanasia!!

We don't have money in Letila, so it isn't a problem. Still, we'll consider it.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

My own mother was diagnosed with inoperable brain and lung cancer, and contemplated ending it, and , as horrible as it sounds, I would have helped her. Does this make me a bad person? i only hated to see her in such mental and physical pain. The only people that this law would apply to would be those with a diagnosis of a terminal disease. My choice was taken out of my hands by nature, as my mother died in her sleep before she was totally incapacitated. :(
zigman AKA Hagen Bonecracker

So then, based on a belief springing from your personal experience, you would legalize euthanasia in your nation. But does that mean you have a right to force that belief on all UN member nations?

Yes it does, if you are a UN member you MUST obey UN rules or withdraw from the organization.

You say this as if to point out something I haven't realized. This resolution HAS NOT YET PASSED. By voting to pass this resolution, you are pushing your beliefs on hundreds of other nations, impinging on their right to govern their own internal affairs. Sorry, I just don't see what new information is presented in your "argument." Is the "yes" in response to the question of whether they have a right to force their beliefs on others? Because thats NOT what the UN exists for; it exists to govern INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS such as maintaining/establishing peace between nations, not to govern the individual people--that is what the GOVERNMENTS are for. This resolution creates a law affecting the PEOPLE, not the NATIONS, in this sense.
um euthinasia is good and um ^^ that looks REALLY cool
people should be able to choose whether to end their suffering or not. Hey lets even legalize scuicide!. Then murder! Then all crimes! yea... right

The resolution is quite open to interpretation. The interpretation I put on it is that each country can choose either for the age limit, OR for only in life-threatening circumstances.

As I am in favour of euthanasia in life-threatening circumstances, I find no reason why this resolution should not pass; but that is just based on my interpretation.

The resolution is quite open to interpretation. The interpretation I put on it is that each country can choose either for the age limit, OR for only in life-threatening circumstances.

As I am in favour of euthanasia in life-threatening circumstances, I find no reason why this resolution should not pass; but that is just based on my interpretation.

yes it's too open the interpretation. Some nations will use this as a basis for genocide. This can't be allowed to happen.

We are uneasy with proposals which would make "poor quality of life" a criterion for euthanasia (or abortion, prosepctively).

This is so subjective, it can easily be misused. Someone who cannot talk, for instance, might still be able to use the internet to communicate. Who can decide if his life is of "poor quality"?

This is not a debate about whether euthanasia is good or not. Different people have different opinions on that. What I hope we can agree on is that this UN resolution should not be passed, because it sucks. It allows for old people with no illness to be killed. I allows people who have become unconscience to be killed off. A scenario

Citizen: "Oh dear I fell off my ladder and banged my head."
Ambulance guy: "Oh look this guy aint moving, best put him out of his missery now."
Citizen: "Hey wait a minute whats that needle doing?"
Ambulance guy: "Oh sorry mate, I seem to have given you a lethal injection. I thought you were out for good. Don't worry it will be all over soon."
Citizen: "sh*t!"

Vote against this resolution now as its badly written and ill thought out. If you support euthanasia this is not the resolution to answer your prayers. Vote against!

[quote="Letsbe Havingewe"]
Citizen: "Oh dear I fell off my ladder and banged my head."
Ambulance guy: "Oh look this guy aint moving, best put him out of his missery now."
Citizen: "Hey wait a minute whats that needle doing?"
Ambulance guy: "Oh sorry mate, I seem to have given you a lethal injection. I thought you were out for good. Don't worry it will be all over soon."
Citizen: "sh*t!"
[\quote]

I don't think you understand the true nature of euthansia. It is never to be used in such a manner as you describe above. Euthansia is primarily used for people with terminal illnesses, who have living wills stating clearly to their own relatives and friends, "If I become unconsciouse for x amount of time, please end my suffering." Not for people who "happen to bang their heads" and now an "ambulance guy," aka, a PARAMEDIC, makes the call to kill a patient. That was never how euthansia was intended to be used, and your example is a severe oversimplification of the issue.

[quote=Letsbe Havingewe]
Citizen: "Oh dear I fell off my ladder and banged my head."
Ambulance guy: "Oh look this guy aint moving, best put him out of his missery now."
Citizen: "Hey wait a minute whats that needle doing?"
Ambulance guy: "Oh sorry mate, I seem to have given you a lethal injection. I thought you were out for good. Don't worry it will be all over soon."
Citizen: "sh*t!"
[\quote]

I don't think you understand the true nature of euthansia. It is never to be used in such a manner as you describe above. Euthansia is primarily used for people with terminal illnesses, who have living wills stating clearly to their own relatives and friends, "If I become unconsciouse for x amount of time, please end my suffering." Not for people who "happen to bang their heads" and now an "ambulance guy," aka, a PARAMEDIC, makes the call to kill a patient. That was never how euthansia was intended to be used, and your example is a severe oversimplification of the issue.

Thats how you see it, being a reasonably intelligent person with a modern upbringing. THIS resolution however, and this is the point Letsbe is trying to make, is SO open to interpretation, that it could easily be abused in the above manner by countries less civilised they your own

How can it be abused? Each nation could pass a law to legalise torture if they wanted to, who can stop them?

This is a law with loopholes, but that is a good thing. Each nation can tighten those loopholes appropraitely as they see fit, which is better than some rigid system that some may not want.

As to why should people in other nations be forced to allow this, the same reason why the Un should, for example, outlaw torture (if it hasn't been done already),. because it doesn't matter where people are, they shouldn't have to suffer.

Imagine if this was you.

And yes, no matter what the laws, some people will get around it and benefit unduly. I'd rather that happened 100 times than for someone to suffer for what seem like eternity. Again, that person could be you. Use your heads, support this resolution and enact your own laws to fit it in as you want it.

Euthenasia is immoral! Killing anybody, even somebody who is dying is a mortal sin! The Vatican State is greatly opposed to this proposal! Even if you are not catholic, you must see the immorality to this. Discontining ALS(Advanced Life Support) and not taking extraordinary means to save their live is acceptable, but giving them a lethal dose of medication is not. Somebody who is ready to die should sign a DNR(Do Not Ressucitate) Order, which states that the patient does not want CPR(Cardiopulminary Ressucitation), Deffibrilation, Medication, or other prehospital or emergency room treatment.

Relgion does not come in to this. Morality does. Killing someone for the right reasons has been something that mankind has been doing for Millenia, including Catholics. How many religious wars have they been involved in?

This is ending someones misery. We do it to our pets. Would you like to be in a coma for 3 years, not being able to move, but being able to hear everything around you. It would drive you mad. Put yourself in the shoes of the people who need your help.

The respect that we owe the elderly compels me once again to raise my voice against all those practices of shortening life known as euthanasia.... Euthanasia is an attack on life that no human authority can justify, because the life of an innocent person is an indispensable good.

--Pope John Paul II

Euthanasia
(From Greek eu, well, and thanatos, death), easy, painless death. This is here considered in so far as it may be artificially brought about by the employment of anaesthetics. When these last are of a character to deprive the sufferer of the use of reason, their effect at this supreme hour of human life is not viewed with approbation by the received teaching of the Catholic Church. The reason for this attitude is that this practice deprives a man of the capacity to act meritoriously at a time when the competency is most necessary and its product invested with finality. It is equally obvious that this space is immeasurably precious to the sinner who has still to reconcile himself with his offended God.

An additional motive assigned for this doctrine is that the administration of drugs of the nature specified is in the premises if not formally at all events equivalently a shortening of the life of the patient. Hence as long as the stricken person has as yet made no adequate preparation for death, it is always grievously unlawful to induce a condition of insensibility. The most that may be granted to those charged with responsibility in the case is to take up a passively permissive demeanour whenever it is certain that the departing soul has abundantly made ready for the great summons. This is especially true if there is ground for apprehending, from the dying person's continued possession of his faculties, a relapse into sin. In no contingency, however, can any positive endorsement be given to means whose scope is to have one die in a state of unconsciousness. What has been said applies with equal force and for the same reasons to the case of those who have to suffer capital punishment by process of law.

"Whatever is opposed to life itself, such as any type of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia, or willful self-destruction, whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, torments inflicted on body or mind, attempts to coerce the will itself; whatever insults human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children; as well as disgraceful working conditions, where people are treated as mere instruments of gain rather than as free and responsible persons; all these things and others like them are infamies indeed.

They poison human society, and they do more harm to those who practice them than to those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are a supreme dishonor to the Creator".

You thinking quoting the pope helps your case? You would think that at his age he'd know better. Actually countering points, instead of some random point would probably help.

How many wars have the vatican sanctioned again?

The Vatican State admits that there was a series papally sanctioned wars (1096-1291) to recapture Palestine from the Muslims, and several other violent encounters through the years and would like to publicly apologize for the misdoings of our predecesors. I would make the argument, however, that you can pin almost any crime on any society, if you go back in time far enough. You notice that the Vatican was not involved in WWI, WWII, the cold war, etc....

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

*wistful laugh* Maybe the U.N. should have a requirement that a nation have posted on the forum within the past week in order to vote or participate...it seems like the big group that's swaying the current vote is made up of people who haven't bothered coming to the forum to even debate the issue...

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

OK i really wasnt able to completly read the post above but w/e. OK ppl this resolution sux. This not just unclear on it laws but it is also idiotic. There is an issue in all your countries to legalize euthanasia y is it a UN proposal. Second form what i can collect from teh proaposal all requiered to have the right to commit euthanasia is a signed paper. How will u analize a fatal desease anyway. How will you analize taht a person can not deside for themselves. For example i have a suicidal cousin (not really) he sais he wants to die and end his life. He has the abuility to say it but it doenst mean that it right for him to be killed off. Common were down by 2000 stop being morrons and vote against it

euthanesia shall be used only in extreme case of real sick people not as a kind of abuse and death penalty

But thanks to loopholes in the resolution, this isn't actually enforcable. It leaves a frightening amount of room for abuse, in fact, in addition to its interfering with national sovereignty. Is this not an issue for individual nations to decide? It is purely internal, not an international affair.

One person's abuse is another's interpretation.

While Godless Savage Garden is still shaky on this issue, we believe it is up to national sovereignity. Either the resolution enforces legalized euthanasia, or there are loopholes to get around it. So the resolution either violates national sovereignity or does nothing but possibly make the processes of sovereign nations banning euthanasia less efficient.

What's ironic is that the UN is becoming more authoritarian to enforce libertarian viewpoints.

The UN was originally established in regards to international peace; however, it's role in the world is not simply international. Take a look at the Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 which, in numerous articles, violates national sovereignty.

The UN has authority to intervene in a wide variety of domestic issues.

...OK ppl this resolution sux.

It does. This resolution allows people who are *not* terminally ill, quoting from the resolution :***"In the case of a freak situation in which a person has no serious illness **** to be killed by the person closest to them???!!!****

That means a person could be killed if they have no serious illness, a proposal creepier than our national animal, the tripodium.

I may be for aiding someone who is actively dying (which is medically defined as organ systems shutting down) and has requested, to be given say more pain relievers like morphine which would helps their pain as well as allows a faster humane and dignified death is good. The idea of informed consent about no heroic measures to keep someone alive whose brain is dead is good, but this resolution isn't about that. It allows for indiscriminate putting of people down while saying the word "careful" a few times, which means nothing in view of this one clause. Vote NO, or your evil cousin may decide on medical advice you best be swimming with the fishes. ~Rigatunia

The UN was originally established in regards to international peace; however, it's role in the world is not simply international. Take a look at the Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 which, in numerous articles, violates national sovereignty.

The UN has authority to intervene in a wide variety of domestic issues.

I simply personally think this is going too far. When I think of base human rights, this doesn't come up in my mind.

i am definitally voting against, but i can see it will pass. but in my nation, i will set the age limit to over 150 years, and an illness that will kill within the week. that should cancel it out.

wahee, we recovered some ground...i just convinced my regional delegate to vote against the resolution, all 217 votes of 'im :D :D
kudos to nusseburg for kicking me out of the crummy old atlantic and sending me to my faaabulous current home in the rejected realms!! :D :D

wahee, we recovered some ground...i just convinced my regional delegate to vote against the resolution, all 217 votes of 'im :D :D
kudos to nusseburg for kicking me out of the crummy old atlantic and sending me to my faaabulous current home in the rejected realms!! :D :D

very good, im gonna start tring 2 get more people against it... how many more days/hours does it have left...?

ahh it looks like both sides are gaining votes at the same rate. its gonna pass. sadly its gonna pass.

i recomend we each go to our regions a debate this issue there and if we are not able have them vies the forumn

The act also must be carried out in the most painless way possible.

Who is going to volunteer to determine which type is the most painless death?... Perhaps after you are dead and clarify this for me, I will buy into it.

Relgion does not come in to this. Morality does.

Ha. Ha Ha Ha. Bwa. Hahahahahahahahaha!!!!! Wohee! Whahahahahaha! Um... I'm, (chuckle) sorry. I should...Hahahahahahahaha! I should make a...(chuckle, wheeze) make a counter point but this is so, ha hahahahahaha! So Absurd.

The Republic of the St. George's Isles

I guess the main concern of the majority of the UN members are that whether the legalising of euthanasia will be effective in one's state. By effective, I mean the law governing the use of euthanasia must be specific, therefore omitting any loopholes. But as we know, each government has their own practices of doing things and as such the ideal outcome of legalising euthanasia (to help ease the suffering of the terminally sick ) may not be realised. In this case, I believe going against legalising it would be better. Correct my logic if I'm wrong. :wink:

IF THIS PROPOSAL IS PASSED WE WILL RESIGN FROM THE U.N. IT IS A MORONIC AND EXTREMELY ILL CONCEIVED PROPOSAL AND WE WILL NOT BE DICTATED TO BY AN IDIOT!

Let us write a compromise where it becomes legal to remove life-support. Euthanasia is a form of suicide. It should not become UN policy to make decisions on the legality of suicide.

JUST ONE FURTHER THING ON THIS ISSUE, THEN WE SHALL HOLD OUR PEACE. UPON THE PASSSING OF THIS PROPOSAL, WE SHALL OPEN OUR BORDERS TO ANYONE THAT WISHES TO SEEK ASYLUM IN OUR COUNTRY TO ESCAPE FROM THIS INCREDIBLY ASSININE PROPOSAL AND PROVIDE FOR THE FULLEST OF MEDICAL AND REHABILITATIVE CARE, WITHOUT COST.

Relgion does not come in to this. Morality does.

Ha. Ha Ha Ha. Bwa. Hahahahahahahahaha!!!!! Wohee! Whahahahahaha! Um... I'm, (chuckle) sorry. I should...Hahahahahahahaha! I should make a...(chuckle, wheeze) make a counter point but this is so, ha hahahahahaha! So Absurd.

The Republic of the St. George's Isles

I see, the argument of someone who doesn't have one..

My main post dealt with this fully, and everyone has totally ignored that one. The mainstay of a weak argument...

Relgion does not come in to this. Morality does. Killing someone for the right reasons has been something that mankind has been doing for Millenia, including Catholics. How many religious wars have they been involved in?

This is ending someones misery. We do it to our pets. Would you like to be in a coma for 3 years, not being able to move, but being able to hear everything around you. It would drive you mad. Put yourself in the shoes of the people who need your help.

Do you know lots about comas then? Lets see the medical research done on comas... oh dear, it's inconclusive. We shouldn't be killing people when they are suffering ailments we do not fully understand.

Religious wars are irrelevant to this issue, frankly it's rather a cheap way of doing down the religious standpoint (guess what? They have morals too).

Morality is totally subjective, it cannot be used as a rationalisation behind anything. 'Killing someone for the right reasons', what are they exactly?

The fact is, if someone is in a coma, how can you tell what mental state they are in? You just don't know, you don't have the right to decide, we should aspire to live in a society where only the individual decides what the individual is thinking and feeling.

Much like the death penalty, in order for euthanasia to be practicable, a small amount of state legalised murder has to be tolerated. I for one am not prepared to tolerate any state legalised murder. The fact is, even when the individual decides, we can never be 100% certain of that decision (ie the person might regret it later), but death is 100% certain and there is no going back.

As you can see, my moral standpoint (for the record I am not religious) is different to yours. Why is yours better than mine? I advocate tolerating a small amount of suffering to preserve life, you advocate destroying life to end that small amount of suffering.

And all that is apart from the fact that this is totally outside the UN mandate.

Relgion does not come in to this. Morality does. Killing someone for the right reasons has been something that mankind has been doing for Millenia, including Catholics. How many religious wars have they been involved in?

This is ending someones misery. We do it to our pets. Would you like to be in a coma for 3 years, not being able to move, but being able to hear everything around you. It would drive you mad. Put yourself in the shoes of the people who need your help.

Do you know lots about comas then? Lets see the medical research done on comas... oh dear, it's inconclusive. We shouldn't be killing people when they are suffering ailments we do not fully understand.

Religious wars are irrelevant to this issue, frankly it's rather a cheap way of doing down the religious standpoint (guess what? They have morals too).

Morality is totally subjective, it cannot be used as a rationalisation behind anything. 'Killing someone for the right reasons', what are they exactly?

The fact is, if someone is in a coma, how can you tell what mental state they are in? You just don't know, you don't have the right to decide, we should aspire to live in a society where only the individual decides what the individual is thinking and feeling.

Much like the death penalty, in order for euthanasia to be practicable, a small amount of state legalised murder has to be tolerated. I for one am not prepared to tolerate any state legalised murder. The fact is, even when the individual decides, we can never be 100% certain of that decision (ie the person might regret it later), but death is 100% certain and there is no going back.

As you can see, my moral standpoint (for the record I am not religious) is different to yours. Why is yours better than mine? I advocate tolerating a small amount of suffering to preserve life, you advocate destroying life to end that small amount of suffering.

And all that is apart from the fact that this is totally outside the UN mandate.

Nice way to contradict yourself in the same post. Only an invidual can decide, but we can't trust indivduals to decide. Nice, very nice..

We should trust people to decide their own fate. I write a document saying if I'm in a coma for 2 weeks then kill me, then that's my choice. A relative kills me despite chances of my recovery as a result to get my cash, then tough. I decided, I took the risk as we all take risks daily. I'm glad that you're happy for the government to decide for you, but I'm not. I think we should give people more credit, let Darwin's laws apply.

As for killing someone for the right reasons, I can't believe how hypocritical some people are. I'm sure most people agree that some (and I do mean some) wars are justified. Or perhaps killing someone to defend yourself or your loved ones. There have to be some good reasons, but where do we draw the line?

Certainly we allow people to decide that they want to die, to do otherwise is taking away a persons own right to decide for themselves. "protecting people from thereselves" is just patronising.

And anyway, as many people have pointed out, this legislation is full of loopholes, each nation can fill those as they see fit.

Nice way to contradict yourself in the same post. Only an invidual can decide, but we can't trust indivduals to decide. Nice, very nice..


I think you'll find I said that the individual should be allowed to think and feel freely. I didn't say that the individual should have the right to decide whether or not to end their own life. Please read my posts properly in future.


We should trust people to decide their own fate. I write a document saying if I'm in a coma for 2 weeks then kill me, then that's my choice. A relative kills me despite chances of my recovery as a result to get my cash, then tough. I decided, I took the risk as we all take risks daily. I'm glad that you're happy for the government to decide for you, but I'm not. I think we should give people more credit, let Darwin's laws apply.


Well if that isn't anti-societal argument... I really believe that we should be more civilised than to allow people to go around ordering other people to kill them. In a democracy the government is representative of the people, so no, the government is not deciding for me, I am deciding for me through the democratic process and I decide that I should NOT be given the choice whether or not to end my own life. We should be moving out of the evolutionary quagmire (for the record Darwin had no laws, just theories) and onto a more philosophical plane. Euthanasia is so open to abuse that it would be morally (imho) wrong to allow it.


As for killing someone for the right reasons, I can't believe how hypocritical some people are. I'm sure most people agree that some (and I do mean some) wars are justified. Or perhaps killing someone to defend yourself or your loved ones. There have to be some good reasons, but where do we draw the line?


Exactly, where do we draw the line? Surely there is enough killing in this world (I not sure that war can ever be truely justified) why legalise more? We should be trying to see human life as something to be treasured, not as a personal liberty or, dare I say it, commodity to be squandered as the user sees fit, or indeed as those 'closest' to them see fit. In my opinion killing is NEVER 'right'; all reasonable steps should be taken to ensure the death of an individual is avoided in all areas of life. War is terrible, it is the perfect demonstration of human weakness, I find it totally abhorrant and I am concerned that you have a blase moral attitude towards it.


Certainly we allow people to decide that they want to die, to do otherwise is taking away a persons own right to decide for themselves. "protecting people from thereselves" is just patronising.


Nope, we are protecting the interests of society which is not patronising, it is common sense and a fundamental concept of the democratic process.


And anyway, as many people have pointed out, this legislation is full of loopholes, each nation can fill those as they see fit.

Not good enough, it effectively legalises genocide.

I agree wholly with this proposal.

My own mother was diagnosed with inoperable brain and lung cancer, and contemplated ending it, and , as horrible as it sounds, I would have helped her. Does this make me a bad person? i only hated to see her in such mental and physical pain. The only people that this law would apply to would be those with a diagnosis of a terminal disease. My choice was taken out of my hands by nature, as my mother died in her sleep before she was totally incapacitated. :(
zigman AKA Hagen Bonecracker

So then, based on a belief springing from your personal experience, you would legalize euthanasia in your nation. But does that mean you have a right to force that belief on all UN member nations?

Yes it does, if you are a UN member you MUST obey UN rules or withdraw from the organization.

You say this as if to point out something I haven't realized. This resolution HAS NOT YET PASSED. By voting to pass this resolution, you are pushing your beliefs on hundreds of other nations, impinging on their right to govern their own internal affairs. Sorry, I just don't see what new information is presented in your "argument." Is the "yes" in response to the question of whether they have a right to force their beliefs on others? Because thats NOT what the UN exists for; it exists to govern INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS such as maintaining/establishing peace between nations, not to govern the individual people--that is what the GOVERNMENTS are for. This resolution creates a law affecting the PEOPLE, not the NATIONS, in this sense.

Each nation would have the right to decide the way they enforce the law. In Europe there is a speed limit. In Germany there is nearly no enforced spped limit, except if the speed is unsafe for the conditions. Nations that oppose the law can enforce the law strictly.

I don't think you understand the true nature of euthansia. It is never to be used in such a manner as you describe above. Euthansia is primarily used for people with terminal illnesses, who have living wills stating clearly to their own relatives and friends, "If I become unconsciouse for x amount of time, please end my suffering." Not for people who "happen to bang their heads" and now an "ambulance guy," aka, a PARAMEDIC, makes the call to kill a patient. That was never how euthansia was intended to be used, and your example is a severe oversimplification of the issue.

The proposal is a severe oversimplification of the issue because it allows this to happen. We understand the true nature of euthanasia fine, that's why we know this proposal sucks! In any case there is no way of legalising euthanasia:


Legal killing undermines morality
You can't legalise voluntary euthanasia without legalising involuntary euthanasia, as Nazi Germany Holland have found. 3% of deaths in Holland during 1995 were from euthanasia. 900 of these deaths were because the doctor acted without explicit consent. Doctors could say anything in court, because the patient is dead and can't defend himself, and the doctor would have to be believed. It's resulted in people being terrified to get sick and go to hospital because there is no protection for them if euthanasia is legal.
Sick people are in no fit mental state to judge their own prognosis. The majority of patients who ask to die do so in order to see how other people value them. Unfortunately for the patient, who has no protection anymore from the law, the effects are irreversible
The emotional burden placed on everyone involved would be too much
As has been found in Holland, it undermines the trust between a patient and doctor, which is the foundation of successful medical care. People are frightened to go to hospital because the hope of recovering is gone

Of course that's all besides the point here. The issue is that this is a bad propsal.

Relgion does not come in to this. Morality does.

Ha. Ha Ha Ha. Bwa. Hahahahahahahahaha!!!!! Wohee! Whahahahahaha! Um... I'm, (chuckle) sorry. I should...Hahahahahahahaha! I should make a...(chuckle, wheeze) make a counter point but this is so, ha hahahahahaha! So Absurd.

The Republic of the St. George's Isles

I see, the argument of someone who doesn't have one..

My main post dealt with this fully, and everyone has totally ignored that one. The mainstay of a weak argument...

Oh, I have a point, I just thought I'd mock the stupidity of the statement and let people figure it out. But since that appears to be impossible (heaven help us in a world where I have to explain this...) I'll draw you a map.

Issues of morality cannot be separated from issues of religion or philosophy. Those are the only disciplines that study morality. To say that we are going to talk about morality while excluding religion would be equivalent to saying we're going to study the universe by excluding astronomy.

You can do it. But it's absurd.

The Republic of the St. George's Isles

The American Medical Association, an association of more than 690,000 doctors of medicine (MD) and doctors of osteopathy or osteopathic medicine (DO) believes that physician-assisted suicide is unethical and fundamentally inconsistent with the pledge physicians make to devote themselves to healing and to life. Laws that sanction physician-assisted suicide undermine the foundation of the patient-physician relationship that is grounded in the patient’s trust that the physician is working wholeheartedly for the patient’s health and welfare.

The American Medical Association, an association of more than 690,000 doctors of medicine (MD) and doctors of osteopathy or osteopathic medicine (DO) believes that physician-assisted suicide is unethical and fundamentally inconsistent with the pledge physicians make to devote themselves to healing and to life. Laws that sanction physician-assisted suicide undermine the foundation of the patient-physician relationship that is grounded in the patient’s trust that the physician is working wholeheartedly for the patient’s health and welfare.

The American Medical Association, an association of more than 690,000 doctors of medicine (MD) and doctors of osteopathy or osteopathic medicine (DO) believes that physician-assisted suicide is unethical and fundamentally inconsistent with the pledge physicians make to devote themselves to healing and to life. Laws that sanction physician-assisted suicide undermine the foundation of the patient-physician relationship that is grounded in the patient’s trust that the physician is working wholeheartedly for the patient’s health and welfare.

Indeed. This is why we would direct those against the euthanasia measure to look at our "Euthanasia loop-hole," on the forum. The summary of the matter is this - the resolution demands that the state recognize a right to this hideous procedure. However, our medical association (OMA), a private professional group, has as its policy to ban for life from the medical profession any doctor who performs euthanasia. OMA is not a public body, and therefore does not have to enforce the same "rights" as the state. But, medical licensing in the RCO requires OMA approval. Effectively, euthanasia will be a practical impossibility in our state, while we still remain within the letter of the resolution.

States against this measure need not fear leaving the UN over it. We almost did ourselves. But there are other ways to prevent this horror in your countries while still remaining in the UN, hopefully to make it better.

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

That loophole should not be neccesary! My country obviously, for moral reasons, will have to find some sort of loophole to get through this. It is my belief, however, that the UN is making a grave mistake.

Like i mentioned when i started this topic, Euthanasia is more of a Nazi fiat than a helpful or beneficial international law. This will allow the government to eliminate all medical services, as they could kill all the handicapped people or ill people who wish to receive medical care. Hospitals will be ordered to kill off costly patients to save money for the state. An era similar to that of the Nazi genocide will be reborn, and the entire world will come to ruin!

Please allow me to point out something:

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 sentence gives us two cases. In the second case we have someone who is 'over a certain age' that cannot make the decision of whether to go on living or not. In the first case, the ONLY criterion given is that person has 'no serious illness', but still cannot decide whether or not they should continue living.

So this provides that ANYBODY not seriously ill that cannot decide for themselves if they want to live or not, can be euthanized (read murdered) if a few people 'closest to them' can get 'professional medical advice' to kill them.

I am against euthanassia.

There is something about this that is really bothering me, and its the fact that your position regarding Euthanassia can be stablished SIMPLY BY ONE OF THE MOST COMMON ISSUES HERE!!!

But with this proposal, you get forced to accept it. Now, personally, i dont find sense to have both an UN proposal and at least a issue for the same topic.

This is not acceptable. As simply as that.

People, please vote against legalizing euthanasia! Think about it this way, if you were completely paralized and unable to speak, and you saw that a family member was about to permit the doctors to do euthanasia on you, when you just knew that you were almost healed. How would you feel? I think that all that euthanasia would do is claim hundreds of lives for no reason, and could easily be abused no matter what the resolution says!

How would you feel if an ex-friend hurt you seriously and pretended he had done it on accident and then persuaded one of your family members to put you out of your misery?

I just gave everyone two good reasons why this resolution should NOT be passed!

Will you people who keep blabbing on and on about it being about ending someone's misery listen for once? The idea of euthanasia itself, that is, the killing of another to relieve them of their suffering, is indeed good, but this specific document is flawed all over and is completely susceptible to abuse. Had the author of the resolution not been in such a rush to finish the document and had actually looked it over, they would have noticed that they leave too many questions unanswered. Cheronton refuses to agree to such a mediocre piece of work.

Oh, I have a point, I just thought I'd mock the stupidity of the statement and let people figure it out.

So, wait, let me see if I can get that statement straight.

If we could "figure it out" ourselves, that meant we already reacted to the statement with the EXACT SAME THOUGHT AS YOU (wow, we must be telepathic! how neat!) and therefore your "ha ha ha"ing was pointless.
Or
If we couldn't "figure it out", that is, we think differently from you in any way, or even don't realize that we think the same as you, then your "ha ha ha"ing told us nothing, and was pointless.

Of course, if your purpose was to makeyourself seem juvenile, then you did have a point, and suceeded.

I totally agree with Cheronton. The basic idea is good but the way is worded is totally wrong. Insteat of putting people out of their misery, it now looks a dictator's paradise

i think it should only be allowed in extreme conditions.

I agree that we should not encourage Euthanasia, but go a step further. It should be banned in all nations, all over the world. This is clearly a human rights violation, lets end it right now!
--Yullanese President Charles Nixon

I do not think that the Legalize Euthanasia bill should be passed. Even though someone may wish to be dead at one point in time does not mean that they will always feel that way. For example, if someone has a terminal illness that has no known cure and wishes to be dead, but somehow pulls through, not only will we have saved a life by not passing this law, but medical research may be done on the patient to try to find a cure and save many more lives.
Also, for the problem of the boy killing his mother, that is not murder, as the bill implied, but is actually assisted suicide, and therefore the boy should not be put on trial for it.

(P.S. Much of this debate has been hypothetical, as it should be. If we are to pass a law we must consider ALL POSSIBLE OUTCOMES.)

Euthanasia in my opinion should not be legalised...No person should ever have their life taken away without doing something incredibly bad, or by themselves. I can already see hospitals cutting off people from life support to save money using the excuse "To put them out of their misery" as a loophole. So unless someone says "I want to die" and practically does it themselves Euthanasia should not pass.

i think it should only be allowed in extreme conditions.

Does the bill say that it would be used only in very extreme situations? NO IT DOES NOT!!!! This bill is too poorly drafted to use Henry Kissenger's argument. The bill only says that the patient's family would make the desision, not that it would be in the patient's best interest.

Euthanasia is not moral anyway, but when there are so freaken many loopholes that allow it to be abused in such a way as to allow people to use it for their own finacial gain, it becomes downright evil.

as I said before ALL POSSIBLE OUTCOMES MUST BE CONSIDERED!!!!!!

... before passing for a vote


Fellow Leaders,

The Commonwealth of Shambhala Mind supports the notion of euthanasia for terminally ill individuals. It is our position that when our time has come, we should be free cross that threshold in the manner of our choosing. We feel that there should be a well-defined area left to national discretion involving terminal cases where the individual is not capable of making this decision for themselves.

We also feel that the current resolution requires revision.

The resolution should contain only fact, context and predicate. This forum is the proper place and home for opinion.

The resolution must state a clear position without ambiguity.

Consequently, we recommend that the current resolution on euthanasia as it stands be scuttled in order to be revised and resubmitted.

The Commonwealth of Shambhala Mind would be happy to participate in the reworking of this bill with other parties interested in pursuing a resolution on euthanasia.

This resolution reads more like an argument for a resolution than a resolution itself. If we accept it as it stands, with its exaggerated rhetoric intact, it opens up all kinds of abuses -- it basically allows euthanasia in every potential borderline case, including cases where cost-related pressure could lead medical professionals to suggest that family members end a patient's life even when there is some chance of recovery and some chance that the patient would want to live.

Vote no on this resolution.

Oh, I have a point, I just thought I'd mock the stupidity of the statement and let people figure it out.

So, wait, let me see if I can get that statement straight.

If we could "figure it out" ourselves, that meant we already reacted to the statement with the EXACT SAME THOUGHT AS YOU (wow, we must be telepathic! how neat!) and therefore your "ha ha ha"ing was pointless.
Or
If we couldn't "figure it out", that is, we think differently from you in any way, or even don't realize that we think the same as you, then your "ha ha ha"ing told us nothing, and was pointless.

Of course, if your purpose was to makeyourself seem juvenile, then you did have a point, and suceeded.

Well I figured it out. I thought the representative from St Georges was right to find the post he was quoting ridiculous - saying that religion and morals are totally seperate for everyone concerned is this debate is a nonsense and it should have been pretty obvious to most people. Most people here (I presume) were brought up in the west, where we have a legal system based on judeo-christian values - this affects the formation of our moral judgements and therefore, even thought we may be avowedly atheist our morals have been affected by religion.

Oh, I have a point, I just thought I'd mock the stupidity of the statement and let people figure it out.

So, wait, let me see if I can get that statement straight.

If we could "figure it out" ourselves, that meant we already reacted to the statement with the EXACT SAME THOUGHT AS YOU (wow, we must be telepathic! how neat!) and therefore your "ha ha ha"ing was pointless.
Or
If we couldn't "figure it out", that is, we think differently from you in any way, or even don't realize that we think the same as you, then your "ha ha ha"ing told us nothing, and was pointless.

Of course, if your purpose was to makeyourself seem juvenile, then you did have a point, and suceeded.

Well I figured it out. I thought the representative from St Georges was right to find the post he was quoting ridiculous - saying that religion and morals are totally seperate for everyone concerned is this debate is a nonsense and it should have been pretty obvious to most people. Most people here (I presume) were brought up in the west, where we have a legal system based on judeo-christian values - this affects the formation of our moral judgements and therefore, even though we may be avowedly atheist our morals have been affected by religion.

... before passing for a vote


Fellow Leaders,

The Commonwealth of Shambhala Mind supports the notion of euthanasia for terminally ill individuals. It is our position that when our time has come, we should be free cross that threshold in the manner of our choosing. We feel that there should be a well-defined area left to national discretion involving terminal cases where the individual is not capable of making this decision for themselves.

(emphasis added)

On this basis, it is an issue best left to individual nations and not in the purview of the UN. This resolution should never have gotten past the proposal review and allowed to come to a floor vote.

Since, unfortunately, it has, we still have a few more hours to make sure that vote sends this resolution back where it belongs. It doesn't have to pass! Contact those supporting directly and ask them to reconsider.

... the UN charter (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/ch-chp1.htm)

Article 1, Section 3 of the UN Charter states:

"To achieve international cooperation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion;"

Clearly, matters of human rights are of interest to the UN.

The fundamental issue surrounding euthanasia is the freedom to choose when and how we die. There can be no question that this is an issue of a human right, regardless of whether you agree with euthanasia, and therefore within the domain of the UN.

"without distinction as to ... religion" means that religion should not be a source of bias. If it is a human right then that is what it is. If an idividual chooses to forego their rights for religious or any other reasons, they should be free to do so: this is their right. If a person chooses to excercise their rights, they should be free to do so: this is their right.

A definition of euthanasia for the purpose of a future proposal:

Euthanasia - The act or practice of killing or allowing death from natural causes, for reasons of mercy, i.e., in order to release a person from incurable disease, intolerable suffering, or undignified death. (from Beauchamp and Walters, Contemporary Issues in Bioethics, 5th ed)

This is not a wholesale condonement of suicide. It is about dignity in the face of certain death and, or unavoidable and intolerable suffering.

No one would pretend to win an argument within the UN regarding banning all military. Yet military history abounds with incidents such as the Bay of Pigs, the Raid on Dieppe, the bloodbath that was Ypres, all within the 20th century alone. All of these are examples of how thousands lost their lives, limbs, health or sanity due to some combination of ignorance, arrogance and disdain on the part of their leaders and superiors. Joining the military is, in this sense, tantamount to playing Russian Roulette in the name of your country and, or religion. Not to mention that the means in which military power is excercised inherently involves premeditated, mass murder, including the murder of innocents, of bystanders, of truth and of honesty.

Let any nation that would abandon the UN over the issue of euthanasia also abolish their entire military infrastructure, or else admit their hypocrisy.

Unless there are any who wish to admit their hypocrisy, or the complete absence of military infrastructure within their nation, let us move on:

Whether or not you agree with the principle of euthanasia, I think we can all agree that the current resolution is in great need of cleaning up and revision, and that it falls short of the mark of being well-written. (Do we have a guideline somewhere for how to write a decent, solid proposal? I keep coming up with dead links. This should be associated with the UN FAQ, somewhere, somehow, and be highly recommended reading for all UN members.)

In the interest of moving this issue forward, the Commonwealth of Shambhala Mind maintains its position that the current resolution be scuttled in order to be rewritten and resubmitted. This task we would gladly participate in.

Respectfully Yours,

Iatia
Representative of the Commonwealth of Shambhala Mind