NationStates Jolt Archive

"Forced Euthanasia
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights Strength: Significant Proposed by: Randomocitia
Description: It is a fact, that some <a href="http://www.ntsearch.com/search.php?q=people&v=56">people</a>, and nations would choose to adopt a policy of forcing euthanasia on the elderly, or the sick. To do so is nothing short of execution, and genocide. This proposal states that:

1. No nation shall be allowed to force euthanasia on the elderly, the mentally ill, the sick, or any human being at all.

2. This proposal will not change the terms of the "Legalise Euthanasia" resolution, neither shall it change it. This proposal would not outlaw euthanasia as defined by that resolution."



We think this is a very important resolution which bans the arbitrary use and the misuse of the Euthanasia resolution.

We ask you to support the proposal (currently on page 19).


Sincerely yours

Marc Smith, president of Kybernetia, regional delegate of Futura

We do not believe that people who are not capable of rationality or self-awareness are, for lack of a better term, people. We allow families the choice to keep there loved ones on life support when that is the only thing keeping them alive. We feel that this is less traumatic for everyone involved

Would these actions be prohibited by the resolution as they are no longer seen as 'people' by our law.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?
Meet The Reps (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588)

I think the operative word here is 'force'. To force someone to do something is to make them do it against their will. If someone's in a perpetual vegetative state, they effectively have no will.

A good and necessary proposal. Full support on this one.

I would raise a problem with your wording. You say that the forcing of Euthanasia on the sick and the elderly is genocide. My dictionary's definition of genocide is "extermination of a national or racial group as a planned move" (Megalex Macquarie Concise Dictionary, 3rd Edition). I fail to see how this qualifies as genocide.

@TBlack,

"We do not believe that people who are not capable of rationality or self-awareness are, for lack of a better term, people."
Quite frankly spoken: we strongly disagree with your legal opinion: people who are sleeping or are in a coma (temoparily or longer) wouldn´t be considered as people (or legally spoken as a person (meaning having rights). We disagree with that: A human being is a person from the the moment of birth (end of birth) till death.
This is also the dominant view in the RW. But the resolution clearly states that no human being should be forced to Euthanasia.
Even if you don´t consider those people as persons they are human beings. It is only for the person himself to decide about his life. It is NOT THE FAMILY WHO HAS THE RIGHT TO DECIDE on euthanasia on behalf of a family member. If the person has not made his will clear when he was capable of doing so (patience will declaration) then it is not on the family to decide to end his or her life, except in cases they can prove that this would be the will of the person.
If that is the way you regulate those things in your coutry, well: that´s banned through this resolution.

Sincerely yours

Marc Smith, president of Kybernetia

Then a) the wording of the document needs to be clearer, and b) we won't support it.

Then you do not have my support.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?
Meet The Reps (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588)

There is already a UN resolution that has been passed that legalizes euthanasia.
Wouldn't this resolution be a repeal or ammendment to that resolution, which of course would be against the game mechanics?

People over 70 should not be kept in life support why? Because young people have accidents all the time and they are a higher priority than the old people that have already lived there lives. As for sick people, well, if they are dying and the want to die sooner (unless they are drugged and dillusional) they should be killed. Old people use the organs of the young people the run over while driving.

I say kill old people to save the young. The young have much more to live for.

Duplicate topic.