NationStates Jolt Archive

The Allied States of New Larson requests a repeal of Resolution #43: Legalise Euthanasia on the grounds that the current resolution violates the right to life of the individual in question.

The current resolution states:

"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 on the basis of professional medical advice."

This clause allows a person other than the patient to decide whether or not a mercy killing to be performed and as such could deny the patient the right to continue his or her own life. It is the belief of our state that unapproved euthanasia constitutes inhuman treatment and therefore contradicts article 5 of the Universal Bill of Rights.

The repeal does not suggest a revised version of this resolution under the argument that a desire to end one's own life often constitutes a mentally unhealthy state and that it is an obligation of the government to protect these people from inflicting harm upon themselves.

*********

The proposal for this repeal is posted in the UN and currently requires delegate support.

Well, the whole letting other people decide to end your life being against the bill of rights sounds like a very good argument to me. Maybe the person, even in horrible pained, wished to endure it, on the slight off-chance of being saved, or whatever.

Not sure about the person wanting to kill themselves to be in a "mentally unhealthy state" though.

Sounds like a good proposal. Do you have the whole thing that you can post onto here?

The person could have also expressed their wishes to the family or be in a situation where they will never be able to make such a decision themselves again in their lifetime. The family or power of attorney, in that case, should be the ones who make the decision.

You have to consider all of the possibilities, not just a few.

Well yes, if the family (or any other person for that matter) has proof of what the person wanted to do in that situation, then you could proceed with euthanasia.

However, even if the person is in a state where they're not able to make a decision (a coma, for instance), and there's NO evidence of what the person would've wanted, i don't think you could make that decision. Without evidence, like that person telling you or leaving a note, no one can possibly "know what you would've wanted" in such a situation.

I say add a clause for if there is evidence found of what the person would have wanted done in such a situation.

Then other questions pop up. Part of the "power of attorney" part I mentioned is basically saying you trust that person to make the decision for you.

It seems that a revision of the wording of the original Resolution might be a better idea - an amendment - as opposed to repealing the resolution.

We are wondering, however, what exactly is meant by "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 on the basis of professional medical advice."

What freak situation would a person find themselves in where there is no serious illness in which the issue of Euthanasia would come up?

In any event, a power of attorney or a living will would clear these issues up quite easily. A person without either of these documents, however, should not be a candidate for euthanasia. Without evidence of the person's intent, it would seem no action should be taken.

As to the desire to end one's life as being a mentally unhealthy state, we disagree. Enduring agonizing pain day after day is a mentally unhealthy state. The discontinuation of said pain would be the healthy side of the coin. We are not discussing suicide here - which is an entirely different issue (not that we think governments should be deciding this either, but that's another story). If a person is terminally ill or in unending pain, we believe it is their right to decide whether to continue or not.

So... while we agree the wording of that one particular paragraph is somewhat problematic, we do not support a repeal of this legislation, but rather a modification.

Contraland believes that this repeal is one of the best ideas we have seen in a long time, not only for the above mentioned reasons, but also for the fact that SOME people do get out of their coma... This might be a very small percentage, but even then, you are saving the lives of the people who do get out of their coma... Also, how can we trust that the persons 'closest' to the patient have the right knowledge to make a just decision... and don't forget the fact that the word 'closest' is extremely vague in all, how are doctors to decide which people are closest to a patient, and is there some sort of hierarchy in that? What if your very last family member approves with euthanasia because you are in a coma and your wife/husband does not... how are doctors to decide what they must do...

Contraland and the rest of United Sick Alliances fully endorses this matter, but hopes that there will be brought forth a better, more specific resolution regarding this issue after this action has been taken...

Wait... i thought euthanasia IS suicide. What's the difference? Aren't they both self-chosen death to end suffering?

Wait... i thought euthanasia IS suicide. What's the difference? Aren't they both self-chosen death to end suffering?

No. Euthanasia is also used often on animals that are too sick to heal and will only suffer for the rest of their lives.

and then there is the issue that euthanasia requires a second person to aid in the ending of a life...

The resolution can be found by searching "euthanasia" on the proposals list.

I noticed that a lot of you are commenting on the last paragraph of the repeal, which is more strongly worded than the rest of the proposal. It does have some opinionated flavor but then again it is only a suggestion and not a mandate. The main goal of the proposal is still to repeal the current law, which allows the lives of people to be placed in the control of other people, such as doctors and lawyers.

I think that a debate on the merits of regulated euthanasia would be a great topic for later discussion and possible resolution, but no matter what the outcome of that discussion is, I think we can all agree that there are parts of the current resolution that are pretty bad.

No matter how we fix this problem, a repeal of the current resolution needs to be the first step.

Matthias Betsworth
UN Delegate of the Allied States of New Larson