NationStates Jolt Archive

I am FOR certain instances of euthanasia and assisted suicide, however I feel that this proposal is poorly drafted and inconsistent.

Within the first paragraph, it implies that a child should be legally allowed to euthanize a parent. I cannot support that.

And what is this about AFTER 5-10 years in a coma?!?! Many nations already allow coma patients to be euthanized long before that in accordance with the patient's living will.

I also think there should be stipulations regarding the condition of the patient. If someone is diagnosed with a terminal illness but is not yet symptomatic, this person should not be allowed to commit suicide simply due to depression. The patient should be in substantial pain or be incapacitated to some degree.

In conclusion, I welcome this issue, but I am greatly disappointed that I cannot support this proposal. I move that this proposal be tabled, redrafted and resubmitted in a much more plausible, rational and humane form.

It is obviously already dividing the U.N. and the world, and could make it difficult in the future to unite the delegates and member nations in order to pass necessary proposals in the future.

To those who feel similarly and voted FOR, I respectfully ask you to either change your vote to AGAINST or withdraw your vote entirely.

Thank You.
Blicero

It's sad to see that so many nations are missing the point in this discussion. Whether or not your agree with legalized euthanasia is totally irrelevant. This proposal should be voted down because it infringes on the rights of nations to govern themselves.

I also agree with certain cases of euthanasia but voted against the resolution. My reasons are such:

At the tender age of 12 I was diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis (MS) and was having a rather rough time being ill. I really wanted a way out and if euthanasia had been legal I would have taken the option. However, if I had done that I wouldn't be here to enjoy life after recovering, for I am now in recession. I think in certain cases, like people who are cancer-ridden, in pain and uncurable but not in cases where people have a chance of recovery.

I also think that by legalising euthanasia we would be opening up a chance for murderers to claim that their victim 'asked them to do it'. Therefore it would undermine the clarity of any legal hearing.

If individual nations want to allow certain cases of euthanasia that's fine but legalising it in general terms, in my eyes, would be a very bad idea.

There is one reason why this resolution should be voted against:

WE ALL HAVE A FRIGGIN' ISSUE ON EUTHANASIA! If you believe in it accept it in your issue. All making it a UN law is forcing those of us that DON'T want euthanasia to be legal to have to make it legal. It's not fair to me for example who believes that euthanasia should not be legal. My reasons are for religious purposes. The way this person who wrote it tried to defend the religion arguement sickened me. God decides when we should expire not man. We can't be like "well let's put them in paradise". God decides when it's time for them to enter the great kingdom (if they should enter). I know it's going to passed and I'm VERY dissapointed

There is one reason why this resolution should be voted against:

WE ALL HAVE A FRIGGIN' ISSUE ON EUTHANASIA! If you believe in it accept it in your issue. All making it a UN law is forcing those of us that DON'T want euthanasia to be legal to have to make it legal. It's not fair to me for example who believes that euthanasia should not be legal. My reasons are for religious purposes. The way this person who wrote it tried to defend the religion arguement sickened me. God decides when we should expire not man. We can't be like "well let's put them in paradise". God decides when it's time for them to enter the great kingdom (if they should enter). I know it's going to passed and I'm VERY dissapointed

There is one reason why this resolution should be voted against:

WE ALL HAVE A FRIGGIN' ISSUE ON EUTHANASIA! If you believe in it accept it in your issue. All making it a UN law is forcing those of us that DON'T want euthanasia to be legal to have to make it legal. It's not fair to me for example who believes that euthanasia should not be legal. My reasons are for religious purposes. The way this person who wrote it tried to defend the religion arguement sickened me. God decides when we should expire not man. We can't be like "well let's put them in paradise". God decides when it's time for them to enter the great kingdom (if they should enter). I know it's going to passed and I'm VERY dissapointed

There is one reason why this resolution should be voted against:

WE ALL HAVE A FRIGGIN' ISSUE ON EUTHANASIA! If you believe in it accept it in your issue. All making it a UN law is forcing those of us that DON'T want euthanasia to be legal to have to make it legal. It's not fair to me for example who believes that euthanasia should not be legal. My reasons are for religious purposes. The way this person who wrote it tried to defend the religion arguement sickened me. God decides when we should expire not man. We can't be like "well let's put them in paradise". God decides when it's time for them to enter the great kingdom (if they should enter). I know it's going to passed and I'm VERY dissapointed

This proposal should be voted down because it infringes on the rights of nations to govern themselves.

This infringes no more than any other resolution. Look at things that were less important, but passed. The anti-SPAM law for example. A capitalist nation may want "freedom to SPAM" more than they want "freedom to not have the police go to the library and find out what books you checked out".

The only thing wrong with this proposal is the grammer.

Please think about this proposal carefully, and consider which path you would take if you were ever to be in this situation (God forbid)?

I have been in this situation, and for someone to appeal to me, or anyone, on those grounds for political gain is sick, whether or not it's a simulation. And what sort of person would believe God is like that? The mess that is this proposal aside, it would still stand that euthanasia is the deliberate ending of someone's life, and therefore murder, and that so many people wish for murder to be lawful (because this proposal lacks definition lacks proper structure to dictate under what circumstances killing someone would be acceptable) is shocking!

So on Friday the UN will be able to say "Join us and you get to kill people". I ask some nation with enough support to firstly overturn this proposal, and secondly, to propose some sort of legislation that would prevent this sort of thing getting to the voting stage. This one made it through. What's next? A child sitting with his mother who tells him to cleanse the neighbourhood of all ethnic minorities? Anyone in this organisation could suggest a restructure of our governments and ideologies, and if it got through, we'd have to do it.

Wrong.

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 reserch 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 therefor the boy should not be put on trial for it.

The only thing wrong with this proposal is the grammer.

Many of us seem to think it has more than just grammar problems. Like legal loopholes, inconsistencies, sophomoric emotional appeals, a confusion between active and passive euthanasia...

The argument that "the UN has passed poorly done resolutions in the past" doesn't justify making the same mistake again.

I do think we should vote for an outcome on this to regulate capitalist countries that would otherwise kill off their economically inactive people under the banner of euthanasia.

The present resolution is no good though - too many loopholes. There is a good amendment to euthanasia proposal in there (ends today)

that this resolution will not do what it says. I will merely up the amount of political freedoms in every nation. It will not to do anything at all about euthanasia. As I believe in giving nations a right to self-rule, to a point. I beliebe that everyone should vote against this resolution!

There is one reason why this resolution should be voted against:

WE ALL HAVE A FRIGGIN' ISSUE ON EUTHANASIA! If you believe in it accept it in your issue. All making it a UN law is forcing those of us that DON'T want euthanasia to be legal to have to make it legal. It's not fair to me for example who believes that euthanasia should not be legal. My reasons are for religious purposes. The way this person who wrote it tried to defend the religion arguement sickened me. God decides when we should expire not man. We can't be like "well let's put them in paradise". God decides when it's time for them to enter the great kingdom (if they should enter). I know it's going to passed and I'm VERY dissapointed

And also while there is the smallest amount of life left there is hope. When you take that away you take away hope!

Many good points were made in this thread:

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=112669

Particularly the second post by Salliston, an excellent analysis of the numerous loopholes in the text itself.

Even if you are basically pro-euthanasia (as I think I am, at least under well-defined circumstances), think about it twice before voting it.