NationStates Jolt Archive

It's true.

"Everyone over a certain age or with a life-threatening illness..."

"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..."

If this proposal had been in operation during Harold Shipman's british tirade, he would have been perfectly within the law to kill anyone with any sort of illness.

First off, a sleeping patient can make no decisions themselves. That legally switches responsibility to the person closest to them; ie, the one looking after them. Which means that, given that the person is suffering from a life-threatening disease or is over a certain age, when sleeping, their doctors have the LEGAL RIGHT to end their lives!

Let's see here; The term "Life Threatening" means that if untreated, the person might possibly have a threat to his life. One such disease that perfectly fits that category is Influenza, also referred to as "the Flu". A severed toe is life threatening. Contracting tetanus from a nail scrape is life threatening. And so, someone could be under general anasthetic during surgery, then killed wilfully by the doctors, and Then These Doctors would have Legal Justification for their actions.

Do you want that? Do you want a state where murder is legal? Do you want a state where there's a law to allow doctors to kill people in their sleep?

I know I wouldn't want to live in one.

It's true.

[quote]
"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..."

I think when Grande proposed the resolution, by "closest" he meant next of kin, like a brother or sister. If Grande indeed means that the doctor has legal rights to euthanise without concent, then this resolution becomes far worse.

All the same this must not become law, the United Nations has no business mandating countries to change their internal policy, certainly on issues such as this.

Tsar Mikhail Romanov I

I think when Grande proposed the resolution, by "closest" he meant next of kin, like a brother or sister. If Grande indeed means that the doctor has legal rights to euthanise without concent, then this resolution becomes far worse.

The intended meaning of this resolution is irrelevant to its actual usage. When it becomes law, the only things that matter are the words on the page. What this resolution says is "Closest", and that makes no reference to family relationship, friendship or even Distance. Situationally, a defence Lawyer working with this resolution would be able to use the word "Closest" to imply that as the doctor was the shortest distance to the patient, and thus the closest, it was his right to decide the fate of the individual.

That's the thing. A nice intention isn't good enough to form law. A nice "Idea" isn't reason enough to make a resolution flawless enough to make it solid Legal commands. And this resolution, through its carelessness in wording, makes murder in some cases perfectly legal.

This just shows the extent to which this proposal will legalize the murder of millions of people. Perhaps if more people knew this they would vote against this proposal.

... Perhaps nobody is in the least bit interested in reading anything I have to say. Perhaps debate has no more place within this organisation.

Prove me wrong. Anybody. Comment, argue, refute... whatever, but any sort of feedback would be a positive step forward. If you don't want to argue, then vote out the resolution; if you don't want to vote out the resolution, then debate with me.

Please..?

WELL THOUGHT OUT ARGUMENTS. IF THIS WAS REAL LIFE AND THE PROPOSAL WENT THROUGH, I WOULD BURN MY DIPLOMA AND BECOME A STREET SWEEPER.

Kamsaki -- I think the reason no one is debating you is that, in this thread and in the other half dozen threads about this resolution, nearly everyone agrees with you.

As do I -- poorly written resolution, no matter how you may feel about euthanasia. Not to mention that problem about national sovereignty.

So apparently all those voting in favor of this res are not on the forums, and we wll have to go out beating the bushes to find enough no votes in the next 36 hours or so.