NationStates Jolt Archive

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.

I knew this proposal was going to tear the UN appart.

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

i think this should be legalised.

Why do you think that it should be legalized?

It's a way of releasing someone from the pain that is incurable; releasing someone from life support. If they are in pain and unable to survive free of this support, then, they should be taken off, since they are going to die anyone. It's only humane.

i beleive it should be passed. take me for example, if i were dying of some horrible, uncurable disease, i would rather just be "euthanized", its quick easy, no mess, no fuss, have a wake, my family gets together and gets drunk, and then ppl get on with their lives, then, i'm no longer a drain on the system, and the money that would be spent keeping me alive for another day could go to those who have a better chance at a much higher quality of life.

i beleive it should be passed. take me for example, if i were dying of some horrible, uncurable disease, i would rather just be "euthanized", its quick easy, no mess, no fuss, have a wake, my family gets together and gets drunk, and then ppl get on with their lives, then, i'm no longer a drain on the system, and the money that would be spent keeping me alive for another day could go to those who have a better chance at a much higher quality of life.

But what if you weren't, and they just said you were ?

I knew this proposal was going to tear the UN appart.

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

For what it's worth. He's a pretty good pol. Good strategy --- he knew who was important, who the sheep were, and who the shepherds were. And he just shepherded the shepherds. Demonstrates tyranny of the majority very well. Should get a speechwriter though.

It should be legalised and I should be in charge of who gets the needle. :twisted:

i beleive it should be passed. take me for example, if i were dying of some horrible, uncurable disease, i would rather just be "euthanized", its quick easy, no mess, no fuss, have a wake, my family gets together and gets drunk, and then ppl get on with their lives, then, i'm no longer a drain on the system, and the money that would be spent keeping me alive for another day could go to those who have a better chance at a much higher quality of life.

But what if you weren't, and they just said you were ?

There are many possible safe guards that can be built into a system. Some ideas include; patient having to gain the approval of multiple independent doctors. The final decision and act completed by an independent doctor who is registered to carry out the request, and who has no prior history with the patient. Cooling off period after the request has been approved. The consent of all immediate family members over a certain age being mandatory, in the case of mental incapacity of the patient.

What's wrong with the "youth in Asia" THIS time? But, seriously, I strongly believe I should have the right to decide when it's my time to die. Even my pets were able to commuicate to me when they wanted to die. In some cases, we already do get the opportunity to decide a loved ones death--removing levels of life support. As long as legal and medical protocols are followed this takes me as a no brainer issue. Just kill me now.

i beleive it should be passed. take me for example, if i were dying of some horrible, uncurable disease, i would rather just be "euthanized", its quick easy, no mess, no fuss, have a wake, my family gets together and gets drunk, and then ppl get on with their lives, then, i'm no longer a drain on the system, and the money that would be spent keeping me alive for another day could go to those who have a better chance at a much higher quality of life.

But what if you weren't, and they just said you were ?

There are many possible safe guards that can be built into a system. Some ideas include; patient having to gain the approval of multiple independent doctors. The final decision and act completed by an independent doctor who is registered to carry out the request, and who has no prior history with the patient. Cooling off period after the request has been approved. The consent of all immediate family members over a certain age being mandatory, in the case of mental incapacity of the patient.

That's true -- safeguards could be put in place. The problem is, with this resolution they weren't, which is a very strong reason to vote against it.

I say vote against. I would do so were I still a member of the UN. I have euthanasia legalised in my nation, but what about the theocracies?

The founder of my region, as an example of this, has stated that he will leave the UN as well if the resolution is passed, and one to repeal it not passed soon afterwards, because he is "irreversably opposed" to euthanasia. Why? Because it's against Catholic teachings, in the same way as contraception and abortion are against Catholic teachings. And since his nation is a Catholic Theocracy, I would assume that Catholic teachings make most of the laws (in fact they do: he has told me this in no uncertain terms).

In short, passing this resolution would be like passing a resolution which forced Jewish or Muslim Theocracies to legalise the eating of pork.

i beleive it should be passed. take me for example, if i were dying of some horrible, uncurable disease, i would rather just be "euthanized", its quick easy, no mess, no fuss, have a wake, my family gets together and gets drunk, and then ppl get on with their lives, then, i'm no longer a drain on the system, and the money that would be spent keeping me alive for another day could go to those who have a better chance at a much higher quality of life.


YOu know... I have been in that situation. My mother was on life support for 15 months and it kept her alive until a transplant came available, without that life support she would have died and not seen m brother and I both graduate high school( we are 5 years a part), me get married, and my brother have a daughter. SO she wasnt all herself for 15 months and had 2 heart attacks and a stroke within that 15 months, but not she is alive and kicking, with only minor setbacks...

Euthanasia should be illegal!!!

i beleive it should be passed. take me for example, if i were dying of some horrible, uncurable disease, i would rather just be "euthanized", its quick easy, no mess, no fuss, have a wake, my family gets together and gets drunk, and then ppl get on with their lives, then, i'm no longer a drain on the system, and the money that would be spent keeping me alive for another day could go to those who have a better chance at a much higher quality of life.


YOu know... I have been in that situation. My mother was on life support for 15 months and it kept her alive until a transplant came available, without that life support she would have died and not seen m brother and I both graduate high school( we are 5 years a part), me get married, and my brother have a daughter. SO she wasnt all herself for 15 months and had 2 heart attacks and a stroke within that 15 months, but not she is alive and kicking, with only minor setbacks...

Euthanasia should be illegal!!!

My father had severe brain damage from a car crash. He couldn't breathe, wasn't expected to ever walk again, didn't know who any of us were, and couldn't talk. Within a year of going into hospital he was home again, walking, talking and lots of other things doctors said he wouldn't be able to do.

He died 8 years later shortly before my 16th birthday of a massive stroke, but he was with us eight years longer than he was ever meant to be.

Euthanasia is giving up. You should be helping people get better in hospitals, not wheeling them in to die. Faith has amazing power, this and the previous post in this thread are evidence of this. Don't throw it all away with this proposal.

....Euthanasia is giving up. You should be helping people get better in hospitals, not wheeling them in to die. Faith has amazing power, this and the previous post in this thread are evidence of this. Don't throw it all away with this proposal.

Is there someone from the Netherlands in NS that could tell us how Euthanasia has been working in there. I think the Netherlands is the only country that does allow euthanasia.

Arwend, your family (and Slagel's) still had the decision when to pull the plug. Yours was a testament to the power of faith/medical science. Agreeing to euthanasia wouldn't change that. Euthanasia isn't giving up, it's giving people with Huntington's and ALS and other catastrophic diseases the power to decide when enough is enough. Yes, the power of prayer is awesome. Is this topic a side topic to how dare we play God? What does "life" mean? Is this just a different version of pro-life v. pro-choice arguments? In that case, this is is one of those "agree to disagree" dialogues.

No one's talking about making it required, but making it legal. If your personal faith demands that you do not do this, then you have the right not to. However, my faith makes no such demands on me. My faith does not demand that I linger for 2 years lying in a hospital bed in pain (or so drugged that I don't know a darn thing) when all medical professionals have determined that they cannot help me. Yes, it is possible that if I decide to hold on, a cure might be found. Yes, it is possible that if I decide to hold on, my wife may wake from that coma. But the point is, it should be my choice whether or I want to gamble 2 years of agony. Whether I want to watch my wife waste away as a shell of what she was.

My nation demands the right to let people decide when the pain is too much.

A Message from the People’s Republic of Teakland

On behalf of the humble people of Teakland, I would like to address what I feel is the biggest weakness of the Euthanasia bill. Before I continue, I would like to clarify one main point: this is not an anti-euthanasia tirade. Teakland has legalized euthanasia, and our citizens very rarely choose to take this route, but our government wanted to make the choice available to our citizens.

Bearing that in mind, I would like to draw your attentions to quotes already made on this forum:

I say vote against. I would do so were I still a member of the UN. I have euthanasia legalised in my nation, but what about the [Catholic] theocracies? . . . In short, passing this resolution would be like passing a resolution which forced Jewish or Muslim Theocracies to legalise the eating of pork.

I cannot pinpoint any passage in the Bible where it says "Thou shalt not ease the suffering of any member of the tribes of Israel by the point of a sword," or anything remotely similar: I do not believe that the original Christian (i.e., The Bible) doctrine specifically mentions euthanasia. However, modern doctrine does, as do a number of other Human Rights proposals in every nation on Earth.

The fact that some nations feel themselves "Liberal" enough to legalize euthanasia does NOT mean that it is right for other nations: for example, theocracies, conservative governments, etc. This is a kind of moral tyranny that would shock many nations if it was of a more "Conservative" bent; since this is more politically correct proposal, however, the majority of the people will vote to support it so as not to rock the boat or be branded anti-human-rights. If nations choose to legalize euthanasia, it should be their decision; they should not strongarmed into it.

While one could argue that "those not in agreement can always leave the UN", the continued passing of this and other so-called "Liberal" policies will serve only to whittle down the United Nations until it is completely ineffective. Some would argue that that time has already come, but I am of the mindset that we can make this body important and powerful again.

In summary: The proposal in question is just another step down the slippery slope towards making the U.N. an impotent laughingstock. Please reconsider your support of this proposal.

We thank you for your time.

Sincerely,
Quincy Chiang
United Nations Delegate

I knew this proposal was going to tear the UN appart.

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

If you are prepared to leave the UN because of one person standing up for their beliefs you are obviously very weak and are unable to see anyone else's point of view. If this is the case I am glad to say farewell to you!

If you are prepared to leave the UN because of one person standing up for their beliefs you are obviously very weak and are unable to see anyone else's point of view. If this is the case I am glad to say farewell to you!

Hmm, do you consider that to be me then?

[quote="Teakland"]A Message from the People’s Republic of TeaklandIf nations choose to legalize euthanasia, it should be their decision; they should not strongarmed into it.

::snip:: ....Please reconsider your support of this proposal.

quote]

I see your very well-agrued point. I apologize to the other nations that I let my personal beliefs cloud my thinking on this issue. United Nations isn't the forum for this issue. I have reconsidered my nations support of this issue and will vote against it.

I bow in deep respect to your life,

Susan
Thus Come One

If you are prepared to leave the UN because of one person standing up for their beliefs you are obviously very weak and are unable to see anyone else's point of view. If this is the case I am glad to say farewell to you!

Unfortunately, leaving the UN is the only way in which you can stand up for your own beliefs. And as for not being able to see anyone else's point of view, you are hardly one to talk. You are the one who is trying to shove your own point of view down everyone else's throat. I, personally, have euthanasia legalised (it isn't on the nation text, I don't think, but I haven't had the issue yet), but I am not opposed to it. Other member nations are, and as such should not be forced to legalise it. Hell; if I had the right to Veto, then I'd do that right now. I ask anyone who hasn't voted to vote against this clear invasion of a nation's right to Sovereignty.

If you are prepared to leave the UN because of one person standing up for their beliefs you are obviously very weak and are unable to see anyone else's point of view. If this is the case I am glad to say farewell to you!

Way to not understand what you are talking about. It is entirely possible to see someone's point of view and be in complete disagreement. This issue is a great example to that effect. A *large* portion of those who are voting against this bill, myself included, are strong supporters to the right to dignity implied by the issue of euthanasia, but disagree with the particulars of this one attempt to legislate it or whether this legislation fall within the charter of the UN or not.

I reject the proposal under both counts. I do not believe it was layed out with the required forthought to it's wording or structure. I do not believe the UN should pass legislation so broadly insulting and revolting to so many of it's member states. (I speak primarily of the number of highly religious states, both theocracies and the merely devout-but-secularly-governed, since many religions consider suicide to be a foul sin against Hope in the Divine.)

And since there is no way to reverse the in justice of unwisely-passed legislation in this UN, those who disagree with this bill will have to decide if they can tolerate belonging to an institution with such high-minded goals, and such poor execution.

Adrego diMariannas.

If you are prepared to leave the UN because of one person standing up for their beliefs you are obviously very weak and are unable to see anyone else's point of view. If this is the case I am glad to say farewell to you!

Way to not understand what you are talking about. It is entirely possible to see someone's point of view and be in complete disagreement. This issue is a great example to that effect. A *large* portion of those who are voting against this bill, myself included, are strong supporters to the right to dignity implied by the issue of euthanasia, but disagree with the particulars of this one attempt to legislate it or whether this legislation fall within the charter of the UN or not.

I reject the proposal under both counts. I do not believe it was layed out with the required forthought to it's wording or structure. I do not believe the UN should pass legislation so broadly insulting and revolting to so many of it's member states. (I speak primarily of the number of highly religious states, both theocracies and the merely devout-but-secularly-governed, since many religions consider suicide to be a foul sin against Hope in the Divine.)

And since there is no way to reverse the in justice of unwisely-passed legislation in this UN, those who disagree with this bill will have to decide if they can tolerate belonging to an institution with such high-minded goals, and such poor execution.

Adrego diMariannas.

Three cheers for this well thought-out post, it states the reason why I just said goodbye to the UN perfectly.

look, euthanesia only lets your people decide whether they die or not, its not like they have to die or summin, they get a choice. If they want to die, fine, if they dont fine. why the big fuss over all this if all it means if it passes is that people can CHOOSE whether or not to die. After all, if it is illegal, what about the people who do wanna die, and if it is legal, who cares?

To all UN members who have not yet voted.

In the interest of democracy, and in the interest of the future of the UN, please vote against "this present resolution" because in totality, all of the reasons for voting against it, not only outnumber the reasons for it, but also simply because this is NationStates, and if the democracy of any of the regions and nations is compromised because of resolutions which pass at the UN, I believe this will lead to the end of the civilized world.

Artmoon, speaker of Sinopia

This law should not pass. Heck, I must admit there have been points in my life I did not want to live. But I pulled thru. If the person is in a coma it is not the relitives choice to pull the plug. Isn't this just legilized murder? I do not wish to quit the UN. This this passes I will make it illegal in my nation. Or I will resign from the UN.

Wow, so far no one has passed anything that could come close to a convincing argument. Most of the things said on this thread will be ignored in sensible debate.

look, euthanesia only lets your people decide whether they die or not, its not like they have to die or summin, they get a choice. If they want to die, fine, if they dont fine. why the big fuss over all this if all it means if it passes is that people can CHOOSE whether or not to die. After all, if it is illegal, what about the people who do wanna die, and if it is legal, who cares?

Sure! Why not make ALL SUICIDE LEGAL? If it becomes more popular than it is already in the midde east, then we can all look forward to more suicide bombings.

Laws have consequences, all of which only become obvious, after we pass them.

Artmoon, speaker of Sinopia

This is an issue I strongly believe should be decided on an individual basis by each nation. Different cultures view death in completely different ways and it is not the United Nations's job to change that.

This issue should never have come to vote:

1) The Un cannot regulate on internal issues, which this is, as it has NOTHING to do with human rights: it's a morale question! ("Is assisted suicide/euthanasia murder?")

2) It is contradictory with an issue that already exists, so in many countries, Euthanasia will be legal (through the un resolution) AND illegal (Through the usual issue)

3) It conflict with the hypocrat serments of physicians and doctors in many countries (Though I am not very familiar with this serment, bear with me.)

... 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

My main reason for refuting this proposal, outside the evident moral/human right and logic angle, is also that NO euthanasia law can exist without loophole.

And Loopholes are utterly unacceptable in a law that actually allows the killing of people!

allowing death from natural causes

I don't see how this is related to euthanasia! Most patients in countries have the right to refuse dangerous/uncertain treatments when suffering last-stage or mortal diseases. (AIDS, cancer and some degenerative diseases comes to mind) This is related to therapeutic obstinacy and medical ethics.

killing for reasons of mercy, i.e., in order to release a person from incurable disease, intolerable suffering, or undignified death.

No matter what the reason is, in my humble opinion, killing of another complete and grown human being (this is not an exactly good definition, but damnit, I don't want to get arguments about abortion!) remains murder. In general, assisting suicide when a person can't perform it is a grey area in many criminal code (as a personal phisolophy, I have nothing against it. Now, as a personnal moral choice, it'd be extremely difficult to make a decision. Again, I'm talking about assisting suicide.).

I do not condone suicide. it would be ridiculous, but I believe the act of suicide should be a personnal choice and process.

Assisting in euthanasia where the patients can't affirm his choice is too touchy to even talk about it.

I also think this proposition should be rewritten, but it is probable that the Federation would still vote against it for the reason explained in the first paragrapoh of this post.

Enthusia is an excuse for those who can't take it like a man (or woman).

So bah i say to It if theres pain deal with it you lazy bums who support enthusia

Enthusia is an excuse for those who can't take it like a man (or woman).

So bah i say to It if theres pain deal with it you lazy bums who support enthusia

:o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :oops: :oops: :oops: :idea: :idea: :idea: :idea: :?: :?: :?: :!: :!: :shock: :shock: :D :D :D :D :D :D

vote against now

The proposal on Euthanasia is badly written with few controls. Boo-hoo, this is NOT about the patient. This is about OTHERS. Who will control the choice? The government or your insurance company seeking to save money? A group of overworked caregivers? Those who want to divy up your stuff after you are gone?

Right now ANYONE in pain is given painkillers and they have the time, space, and can deal with the choice as they will IF it is their choice. This law is not giving any additional righst to the patient, just to killers who will may have a field day justifying their excess and/or enjoying their inheritance.

Living wills allow those who may become ill to choose treatment or no treatment at all and many religions don't bother with medical care in any form. Quite legal for them. I would never inflict a choice such as this on another. Don't bother killing me, I will control my own choices in this matter. Sadly, the Euthanasia bill takes away any power a government might have to enforce MY choice and leaves me and other citizens open to victimization by "kindly souls".

This bill makes it illegal for governments to intervene when doctors, neighbors, relatives or even a stranger on the street decides to "help you out of your pain" — pain that is your choice to deal with. Look at the recent case of SHIPMAN in the news (215+ victims). A doctor who even murdered healthy older people seeking flu shots. He would have been able to argue a case for saving them from true "old age"... even the woman who was an active downhill skier/skydiver and quite happy at 73. This bill gives no standards. Just a teary plea which is splitting the UN on an emotional level with few bothering to THINK about the nuts and bolts of the issue.

Why should membership in the UN require us to legalize immoral behavior and create huge bureaucracies in an attempt to sort "mercy killings" out from murders. How does UN membership benefit my country if the UN begins to promote unethical behavior? What's next? Who is going to pen a bill to erase the effects of this travesty (should it pass)...

Shoya
President Union Pacifica

Euthanasia isn't giving up, it's giving people with Huntington's and ALS and other catastrophic diseases the power to decide when enough is enough

This law doesn't do that. It give the power to anyone who is close to the patient, and because it's so appaulingly written this could mean anyone who is in the room with them. It could be interpreted to be required. No right has to lie with the patient under this law. That's why it shouldn't have passed.