NationStates Jolt Archive

Proposal

BAN KILLING OF SICK AND OLD

It is a fact, that some people, 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. 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. Euthanasia shall only be legal in a case when the person personally gives his consent
3. If this isn´t possible it is assumed that they don´t want euthansia
4. Reaffirming the resolution "Legalise Euthanasia" and underlining the statement "that everyone over a certain age or with a life-threatening illness should be given the right to decide whether, in such a situation, they want to live on for as long as possible, or die with a little dignity left intact."
6. Adding and clarifying to point five that euthanasia should be restritcted to cases where people have
- a life-threatening illness which is uncurable
- they are at least 70 years or older (as nations decide in their national sovereignity)
- they have over a long time pointed out their will that they want to die (more than one year at least)
7. 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, it is only clearifying the terms and conditions."


Eestemed colleagues:
We are asking you for your support for this proposal

Sincerely yours

Marc Smith, president of Kybernetia, regional delegate of Futura

Euthanasia should NEVER be legal under no circumstances.

@Adams Empire,

we have great sympathy with your opinion. But there was already a resolution being passed allowing euthanasia. Repeals are not allowed. It is therefore our aim to limit it as much as possible.
We ask you for your support.

Sincerely yours

Marc Smith, president of Kybernetia

Oh, wait, forced euthanasia? Consider that NO vote a YES.

At some point in our lives, when they have no chance of enjoying themselves and are merely resource vacuums, on life support, miserable, struggling, some of my people want to be euthanized. Don't deny them the opportunity to die with dignity.

Conversely, forcing euthanasia is just as wrong. If people wish to live in the face of such adversity, that is their and their family's prerogative.

Let me point out a problem with Article 6. The resolution says "...that everyone over a certain age or with a life-threatening illness should be given the right to decide..."

This means that Article 6 would be a repeal, since it denies euthanasia to anyone under 70, terminal illness or not.

@Kelssek,

we disagree with you since we interpret the wording of the resolution differently. But it is for the mods to decide whether they see a repeal in that. We don´t think so due to the fact that the wording can be interpreted differently.

"I propose that euthanasia should be legalised. Everyone over a certain age or with a life-threatening illness should be given the right to decide whether, in such a situation, they want to live on for as long as possible, or die with a little dignity left intact."
This can be read the following way: Countries should give the right to everybody over a certain age OR with a life-threatening illness to decide to be killed.
This is a very vague wording. First of all it says SHOULD. It doesn´t say HAVE TO. SHOULD is a recommendation like: you should do that, but you don´t have to - as have to implies - you are obliged to do that.
Since that is the case, we see this paragraph as a suggestion without legal binding and not as mandatory.

Our resolution therefore can not be seen as a repeal since we in principal respect the intention of the resolution to legalize euthanasia in certain cases. This sentence in its vagueness and ambiguity and also given the fact that it is not mandatory can not bring us in a position were we are repealing some resolution provision. It is not a legally binding resolution provision. It is impossible to repeal it since there is nothing legally binding in it.


Sincerely yours

Marc Smith, president of Kybernetia

There are cases when people can not say if they want to get euthanized or not. So in my view everyone should be required to sign a document officially stating what they would want to happen if they were in such a sad situation. If the signer says yes to euthanasia, then they will be, if they say no, then so be it. However, let this not be confusing. Euthanasia would only be used with the person's consent (i.e. document) and under the most extreme circumstances.

Up until I watched my mother-in-law die with cancer, I would have agreed that euthanasia should never be considered.
But when I think about what that poor woman went through, I wish we could have put her out of her misery.
She really suffered, and I hope that if I ever end up in that situation, someone will do me that favor and put me out of my misery.

What is Forced Euthasia?

Sounds like it is simply a euphemism for execution. In which case, nations that practise 'forced Euthansia' will probably continue to do it.

But I agree that the other resolution needs to have it's definitions tightened up.

Conceptualists,

can you agree to our proposal?? What are your ideas to regulate it??

Sincerely yours

Marc Smith, president of Kybernetia

From the other thread:
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
http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=3261218&highlight=#3261218

You do not have our support.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Meet The Reps (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588) ~ What can the UN do and what can it do for me?
(http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588)

Duplicate topic.