NationStates Jolt Archive

Hey all, I am a new NationsStates member, from Thomasstan, and I have been watching the Schaivo case with interest both as a medical professional and as a politically active individual. As such I have created a proposal for submission to the UN, but since I'm a newbie I don't have endorsements..........so please, read my proposal and if you agree, I would appreciate the endorsement!

This resolution would deliniate the proper proceedures for allowing a terminally ill and unresponsive person to die.


CATEGORY: HUMAN RIGHTS
RESOLUTION NAME: The Right To Die

This resolution would deliniate the proper proceedures for allowing a terminally ill and unresponsive person to die.

1 - Chain Of Decision - Precedent is top to bottom
----Spouse or legal significant other
----Adult children
----Living parents
----Two Physicians (One must be unaware previously of case)

2 - Legal Documents
----Living Wills and Advance Directives will be made avaliable in all physicians offices, as well as Department of Motor Vehicles. Completion and notarizing will be free. An advertising and information campaign will be conducted to inform the population of the importance of such documents, and encourage them to complete them.

3 - Judicial Overview
----In the event of a challenge by a party not taking precedence in the decision, and only in the absence of a Living Will or Advance Directive, one judicial review, in a neutral court of appeals, will be allowed, so long as such appeal takes place within 48 hours of the decision to terminate life support.



This will benefit the world in many ways. First, it will allieviate the pain and mental anguish suffered by families trying to decide who makes the decision to terminate care. Second, it will accelerate the process of decisionmaking, thus ending the patient's suffering sooner. Third, it will effectively serve to redirect health care resources from the dying to the living, where much more can be done for the greater good. Finally, it will encourage the world's population to take personal responsibilty for their care in the event they become incapacitated, and by leaving behind a specific set of instructions will serve to improve the delivery of health care.



---------I will accept criticism openly, so blast away, and if you support this I would appreciate the endorsements!

It would help to ask members of your region for endorsements, since people outside your region lack the ability to endorse you. :(

And before you ask, Olwe is bound to the Conclave by both an oath of fealty and a powerful magical spell, so we can't join your region.

Other than that, though, I completely support this, and hope you get enough endorsements to make it a real proposal.

Wasn't there a euthanasia resolution in place already?

In any case, this proposal is way too detailed. You can't and shouldn't describe in so much detail how a nation should implement a resolution. The most important is to make clear (in this case) that you want to give people the right to decide to die under certain conditions, and that there should be a procedure. How this is done exactly, that's best left to individual nations. Some might want to involve religion, other ethics, others science.

This is different from euthanasia, which is actively causing the death of an individual. My proposal is simply to allow the legal guardian or an incompetant terminally ill person to die. It may seem like a minor difference, but causing a death and allowing a death to occur are vastly different.

Thanks for the advice though. I'm (obviously) new at this.

Wasn't there a euthanasia resolution in place already?
Ja.
Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Grande

Description: A child was sat at his mother's bedside when she was unable to breathe for herself and was under constant care. All the child knew was that the dignity of this once strong woman was slowly being drained away, hour by hour, day by day. The child's mother once told him that if she were ever in this situation, that he should do the right thing and put her out of her misery. He decided that he would obey his mother's wishes, and was jailed for 'killing' his mother.

I ask you where is the justice in this? That someone has no right to end suffering?

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 would mean a legal document would be filled out by those concerned. This would ensure that it is not a medical decision, but the patient's choice. After this document is signed, it must only be used in the situations stated.

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.
Also if the patient is in a coma, 5-10 years should be waited until those closest to them make a decision.

The act also must be carried out in the most painless way possible.

Why should carers use up time on those certain to die, when this time could be spent with those with a chance of life?

And for those using religion as a barrier, don't you think that whoever you believe in would rather see the person happy in paradise, rather than suffering?

Please think about this proposal carefully, and consider which path you would take if you were ever to be in this situation (God forbid)?
It seems as though the "Right to Die" proposal in this thread does cover a slightly different topic than "Legalise Euthanasia".

If you want to relate it to the shivo case. Its still euthanasia. Some one still has to pull the tube. Some one still has to cause the death directly. Its not a natural death. Like wise for your proposal. Terminating care = Terminating life. Someone still has to cause the person to die. I.E. The removal of food and water causing the person to die or hitting them on the head with a hammer causing them to die. Causing death is still causing death. This is another case of a good draft, but it attached to a bad idea. Basically your legalizing the murder of a person unable to argue a defense for their own life. Beside Treating a person like a stray dog with rabies just feels wrong. I heard the argument that it doesn't cause pain to starve/dehydrate to death. If that were the case then we wouldn't sent literally thousands of tons of food to eastern African nations. Think of the Sally Struthers commercials. "stop the pain and suffering of starvation." "Send 60 cents a day to feed a child." So it seems to be hypocritical to say that starving to death is painless. I'm not inferring this on you. I'm just heading off that argument. I think you have a noble idea, but its one of those things that should remain an idea.

Ambassador Ujio, DoU

I'm up in the air about this. I like the proposal, but I'm not sure if it's different enough from the "Legalize Euthanasia" bill for it to be a viable Resolution. Does fill a few loopholes from the previous Resolution though.

I don't see enough of a difference for this to be worthwhile.

There are massive differences.

Euthanasia is actively killing someone. You participate in their death. You precipitate it, and they die earlier than they would have otherwise.

Witholding treatment is not killing someone. It is allowing the natural processes of death take effect. You are not shortening their life, you are simply not artificially prolonging it. They die when they 'should' have.

Euthanasia is proactive, witholding treatment is passive. We must ensure that those who do not want to be artificially kept alive are allowed to die, naturally. This isn't about killing, this is about life ending naturally.

Only the party decides who will die, no one else.

i am tending to be in agreeance with this one. to me, Euthanasia is effectivly killing someone, by injection, coup d'gras gunshot, etc. to me, flicking a switch on a life support, or removing a feeder tube, isnt euthanasia, because they are not having an 'artificial' death, it is allowing the natural process.

You left Living Wills and Advance Directives out of your order of precedence. Also, power of attorney.

OOC: you all are arguing in abstract. these decisions are not made in abstract. there is no "right" order of precedence that can be written in stone.

let private people have some goddamn privacy with decisions this personal and this important.

let private people have some goddamn privacy with decisions this personal and this important.

No. It is clearly not their decision. Resolutions like this will cause a serious misuse of human resources.

No. It is clearly not their decision. Resolutions like this will cause a serious misuse of human resources.
OOC: you all are arguing in abstract.

There are massive differences.

Euthanasia is actively killing someone. You participate in their death. You precipitate it, and they die earlier than they would have otherwise.

Witholding treatment is not killing someone. It is allowing the natural processes of death take effect. You are not shortening their life, you are simply not artificially prolonging it. They die when they 'should' have.

Euthanasia is proactive, witholding treatment is passive. We must ensure that those who do not want to be artificially kept alive are allowed to die, naturally. This isn't about killing, this is about life ending naturally.

Euthanasia is a common treatment for those whose lives have been unnaturally prolonged due to hope. In this case, the divisions I see you placing are artificial. Refusing to treat someone is in many cases as proactive as shooting them in the head. You're making an active decision that will cause their demise. Passive is letting them do it themselves.

am tending to be in agreeance with this one. to me, Euthanasia is effectivly killing someone, by injection, coup d'gras gunshot, etc. to me, flicking a switch on a life support, or removing a feeder tube, isnt euthanasia, because they are not having an 'artificial' death, it is allowing the natural process.

The same "Helps me sleep at night despite being untrue" bullshit as the last quote. Really, people, recognize it for what it is.

You are turning off their source of life. That is as active as shooting someone through the heart. In both cases, an artificial means is being used to induce the natural process of death, despite them being quite disimilar. By your arguement, watching someone fall off a cliff, start bleeding from massive injuries, and deciding to do nothing to help them when you can isn't proactive. After all, you're just letting "the natural process" take its course. The same arguement can be used to get a man off a murder charge when he fills the victim's room with poisonous snakes. After all, he didn't personally bite the man, he just allowed "the natural process."

Tell yourself what you have to in order to sleep at night. Just don't expect the rest of us to accept it.

I'm up in the air about this. I like the proposal, but I'm not sure if it's different enough from the "Legalize Euthanasia" bill for it to be a viable Resolution. Does fill a few loopholes from the previous Resolution though.

Is there a procedure for amending resolutions? I'm sure there is, but I'm too new to know what it is.

That said, I'm all for it. Pawnmania would whole-heartedly endorse such a resolution if brought before the general assembly.

Tell yourself what you have to in order to sleep at night. Just don't expect the rest of us to accept it.

So in other words, you're just like President Bush. You support the "right to life", just not the right to quality of life. :mad:

Is there a procedure for amending resolutions? I'm sure there is, but I'm too new to know what it is.
Yes, it's called Repeal & Replace. In other words you have to repeal the resolution first and then submit the new version.

So in other words, you're just like President Bush. You support the "right to life", just not the right to quality of life. :mad:

If you wanted to insult me in the worst possible manner you could, you just achieved it. Feel glad I'm giving you the honor of responding to you instead of just verbally ripping your head off and then shoving it down your neck, no matter how much your comment deserves it.

I support fully allowing a person to end their life at a time when they no longer feel it is worth continuing. I also don't hold life itself as a right, but that's an arguement you don't want to get in.

You are turning off their source of life. That is as active as shooting someone through the heart. In both cases, an artificial means is being used to induce the natural process of death, despite them being quite disimilar.

Faulty logic. In one case, life was being artificially induced, and it is no longer being done. In another, death is artificially induced. The end result is the same but the process is entirely different.



By your arguement, watching someone fall off a cliff, start bleeding from massive injuries, and deciding to do nothing to help them when you can isn't proactive. After all, you're just letting "the natural process" take its course.



More or less true.



The same arguement can be used to get a man off a murder charge when he fills the victim's room with poisonous snakes. After all, he didn't personally bite the man, he just allowed "the natural process."



False. In this case the means of death was again artificially induced, this time by filling the room with snakes.



Tell yourself what you have to in order to sleep at night. Just don't expect the rest of us to accept it.

Unnecessary cheap shot.

Faulty logic. In one case, life was being artificially induced, and it is no longer being done. In another, death is artificially induced. The end result is the same but the process is entirely different.

Illogical. Life cannot be artificially induced in a body already existing. Life can be artificially induced, but that's a process we call artificial insemination.

Flipping off a switch is artificially ending the artificial extension of life. The natural end to an artificially extended life is if the body, without the help of turning off a switch, dies anyway. In this case, it is inducing death by removing the body's method of continuing life.

False. In this case the means of death was again artificially induced, this time by filling the room with snakes.

Faulty logic. Filling the room with snakes does not induce the snakes to bite the intended victim. Many a person has woken up in the wilderness with their sleeping bag full of snakes and lived. In this case, it is the actions of the sleeping victim that annoys the snakes, causing them to bite. A natural action leads to a natural reaction, which leads to the body shutting down from damage. Perfectly natural.

Unnecessary cheap shot.

Not intended as such. Many people, after inducing the death of another for mercy reasons, need to tell themselves some excuse to be able to dodge the guilt of having caused a death, guilt that would keep them awake at night.

Illogical. Life cannot be artificially induced in a body already existing. Life can be artificially induced, but that's a process we call artificial insemination.



Maybe a poor choice of words on my part. Call it artificial continuation of life then.



Flipping off a switch is artificially ending the artificial extension of life. The natural end to an artificially extended life is if the body, without the help of turning off a switch, dies anyway. In this case, it is inducing death by removing the body's method of continuing life.



Can life really naturally end if the means of prolonging it was artificial?



Faulty logic. Filling the room with snakes does not induce the snakes to bite the intended victim. Many a person has woken up in the wilderness with their sleeping bag full of snakes and lived. In this case, it is the actions of the sleeping victim that annoys the snakes, causing them to bite. A natural action leads to a natural reaction, which leads to the body shutting down from damage. Perfectly natural.



The outcome may be natural, if not inevitable, but the situation has been brought about in a totally artificial manner.

Maybe a poor choice of words on my part. Call it artificial continuation of life then.

Call what I did conditioned response. I've seen too many arguements like this hijacked to become arguements about whether or not zombies exist.

Can life really naturally end if the means of prolonging it was artificial?

Yes. The heart can only continue for so long before it is worn out. Quite a few people with artificially continued lives end their lives with their heart finally stopping. Last time I checked, there was a theory that the humanoid body is genetically-programmed to shut down after a combination of a certain amount of damage and time, with higher damage shortening the time. Certain events in roleplaying, such as catching vampirism, can contravene or outright remove this programming, allowing for effective immortality.

The outcome may be natural, if not inevitable, but the situation has been brought about in a totally artificial manner.

Which does not change the outcome of the event itself.

Yes. The heart can only continue for so long before it is worn out. Quite a few people with artificially continued lives end their lives with their heart finally stopping. Last time I checked, there was a theory that the humanoid body is genetically-programmed to shut down after a combination of a certain amount of damage and time, with higher damage shortening the time. Certain events in roleplaying, such as catching vampirism, can contravene or outright remove this programming, allowing for effective immortality.

sorry, I probably wasn't clear. It was meant to be a more open, philosophical question than that. Basically once life has been artificially prolonged, hasn't the whole natural process been subverted? If natural death was prevented, is any death after that truly natural?




Which does not change the outcome of the event itself.

Absolutely. If there is one thing that is inevitable, it's that people die. So in that sense, death is the most natural thing of all, and can't really be artificial, except in the manner in which it is brought about. In fairness, I haven't really followed the Schiavo case, and I don't take a particular stand on this issue. I'm kind of just playing devil's advocate ...

sorry, I probably wasn't clear. It was meant to be a more open, philosophical question than that. Basically once life has been artificially prolonged, hasn't the whole natural process been subverted? If natural death was prevented, is any death after that truly natural?

Going with philosophy, I would have to say "No." It is not a prevention of natural death, just a postponement of it. Natural death can, and often does, still occur. The process isn't subverted, just caused to wait. Considering death is just the body shutting down on its own, without any help in process (turning off life support counts as help), then natural death can easily occur.

Absolutely. If there is one thing that is inevitable, it's that people die. So in that sense, death is the most natural thing of all, and can't really be artificial, except in the manner in which it is brought about. In fairness, I haven't really followed the Schiavo case, and I don't take a particular stand on this issue. I'm kind of just playing devil's advocate ...

I bet it's fun, too. I haven't been following it either, as in this case I just see it as one group being foolish over having lost rights and suing and the other group being idiots in holding out for a futile hope that will never come to fruition.

So in other words, you're just like President Bush. You support the "right to life", just not the right to quality of life. :mad:
Whats wrong about Bush?

Whats wrong about Bush?

That is a discussion best left for the General forum. But let's just say you should check out the topic about extending rights to nonhumans and the Einstein quote I posted. Bush is evidence of the second item Einstein mentioned as infinite.

OOC: you all are arguing in abstract.

You're all wrong, in everything you're saying. This is not a matter appropriate for abstract consideration, nor is it a matter appropriate for governmental legislation.

In other words, quit arguing in abstract, Donkeyhelmetta feels left out. ;)

I agree with Paddy and Thomas that this is different than Euthenasia.

In one instance a doctor has actively provided a service to invoke a death that would not occur at that moment in time but for the intervening force.
(Or for no immediate reason other than the assistance)

In the other a doctor ceases to actively provide a service that will prevent a death that would otherwise occur but for the intervening force.

The difference lies in the intervening role the doctor plays.

Furthermore there is a fundamental difference in the service being requested by the patient. In one instance, the patient is requesting an end to his life. In the other, the patient is requesting that no action be taken to prolong a natural death from occuring.

If a cancer patient requests his doctor give him PB injections that would be Euthenasia, an unatural death sought to avoid a painful natural one. If he stipulates that he should not be assisted if he slips into a comma
he is requesting that he be allowed to die when it would occur naturally, not prolonged. To say no difference exists is almost akin to stipulating that all natural deaths are in effect suicide if you do not take measures to artificially prevent death from occuring and prolong life.

turning off life support counts as help
And why is that, exactly?

And why is that, exactly?

It can be part of the standard DNR if found after the fact... It is a technical form of euthanasia... But not a violation of the Hippocratic Oath, which only speaks of suppling and administration of a lethal dose.

The DNR exists to prevent a patient with a terminal or other form of disease, who have entered an arrestive state, from being kept alive through artificial means... While this is technically a form of euthanasia, it is not legally, or by the HP a form of such... If a person, is being kept "alive", that is the scientific concept of life via the normal biochemical operations of their cells; by machines pumping their blood, machines oxygenating their blood, machines pumping neutrients into their stomach or via IV into the blood stream... While they might be biochemically alive; they are not alive in any spriritual or nominally religious sense... So maintaining that "life" for "moral grounds" as normal self-labled "compassionate conservatism" pulls for, is inconsistent with the actual facts of the situation... The person, in any spiritual sense, has been dead for some time... Removal of the machinery keeping their biochemistry active and running, is just allowing the nature to take its course... This is clearly and logically different from the concept of administration of a foreign substance to cause the persons death... In the case case it is removal of artificial substances that are causing their body to remain biochemically active, even after actual death.

In other words, quit arguing in abstract, Donkeyhelmetta feels left out. ;)

I agree with Paddy and Thomas that this is different than Euthenasia.

In one instance a doctor has actively provided a service to invoke a death that would not occur at that moment in time but for the intervening force.
(Or for no immediate reason other than the assistance)

In the other a doctor ceases to actively provide a service that will prevent a death that would otherwise occur but for the intervening force.

The difference lies in the intervening role the doctor plays.

Furthermore there is a fundamental difference in the service being requested by the patient. In one instance, the patient is requesting an end to his life. In the other, the patient is requesting that no action be taken to prolong a natural death from occuring.

If a cancer patient requests his doctor give him PB injections that would be Euthenasia, an unatural death sought to avoid a painful natural one. If he stipulates that he should not be assisted if he slips into a comma
he is requesting that he be allowed to die when it would occur naturally, not prolonged. To say no difference exists is almost akin to stipulating that all natural deaths are in effect suicide if you do not take measures to artificially prevent death from occuring and prolong life.

Okay, let's take a look at this from a different angle, because at this point I'm realizing this resolution is just to get people to accept an excuse.

Proactive actions require active decisions followed by actions resulting from those decisions. Passive actions are usually such things as reflexes or natural causes beyond the control of humanity.

Now, let's check what this "pulling the plug" amounts to. It is an active decision that results in an action of which the known consequence is the death of a person. Considering it requires an active decision, full knowledge of the consequences, and the hope it will work, it is far from a passive action. If it were caused by a freak lightning storm that knocked out electricity for the place where the patient was, then it would be passive (unless that storm was purposefully caused, at which case it goes back to active).

Unless you can somehow show me that this procedure has no active thought and no actions taken based on active thought, I see no evidence that it is passive. All of your dancing around it, all of your putting rainbows and smiley faces on it, and all of your trying to classify it based on surface differences are not facing the reality of it. The reality is it is quite active, quite thought-out, and the person committing the act has not only thought about it and decided to do it but is hoping the results will be as they have the knowledge of them being. It's about as passive as injecting a vial of poison into a person's arm at their request or shooting your best friend in the head to prevent her/him from gaining your money. And until you can prove that it is otherwise, I will continue to point out the reality of the action.

And why is that, exactly?

For what Tekania said, and what I said above. It is an active decision that results in an action of which the known consequence is the termination of the existance of another being. In this case, it is a mercy killing, the very definition of what makes euthanasia different from murder.

It can be part of the standard DNR if found after the fact... It is a technical form of euthanasia... But not a violation of the Hippocratic Oath, which only speaks of suppling and administration of a lethal dose.

In reality, it is also murder if you do it without the patient's request. And, yes, there are quite a few doctors who do interpret it as a violation of the Hippocratic Oath due to the fact they are actively doing something they know will result in the patient's death.

The DNR exists to prevent a patient with a terminal or other form of disease, who have entered an arrestive state, from being kept alive through artificial means... While this is technically a form of euthanasia, it is not legally, or by the HP a form of such... If a person, is being kept "alive", that is the scientific concept of life via the normal biochemical operations of their cells; by machines pumping their blood, machines oxygenating their blood, machines pumping neutrients into their stomach or via IV into the blood stream... While they might be biochemically alive; they are not alive in any spriritual or nominally religious sense... So maintaining that "life" for "moral grounds" as normal self-labled "compassionate conservatism" pulls for, is inconsistent with the actual facts of the situation... The person, in any spiritual sense, has been dead for some time... Removal of the machinery keeping their biochemistry active and running, is just allowing the nature to take its course... This is clearly and logically different from the concept of administration of a foreign substance to cause the persons death... In the case case it is removal of artificial substances that are causing their body to remain biochemically active, even after actual death.

Actually, Tekania, you are missing a very vital issue. Many of the people you are talking about believe the soul only leaves the body at the moment of true death. Your heart stopping for a few seconds is not true death by that definition. They go by the scientific definition of death. The other problem is some of those "dead" people have recovered from their condition, going on to live full lives and further disproving the idea they are actually dead. The exception is brain death, which is used by some doctors as a sign the patient is truly dead (others wait until the heart stops, and in certain situations the heart is used as a determining factor when it stays stopped for a certain period of time). But as long as the body itself remains alive, there remains, to those "compassionate conservatists", the belief the soul is still in the body.

As it stands, biochemical is all we have about signs of life that we can agree on, which is why it is used so much.

In other words, quit arguing in abstract, Donkeyhelmetta feels left out. ;)

Thank you.

After you've faced this decision with a loved one, you have the experience to talk about this subject with some authority.

Until then, you're playing games.

Thank you.

After you've faced this decision with a loved one, you have the experience to talk about this subject with some authority.

Until then, you're playing games.

YGSM, this is not a time to start digging up old scars. Those who dig too deep tend to get bit by the moles they disturb.

I would , and will support this if a group decided by the U.N. is made to decide who has the right to die , and if many tests have been done that show no brain fuction.

Thank you.

After you've faced this decision with a loved one, you have the experience to talk about this subject with some authority.

Until then, you're playing games.

Experience is not a requisite for abstract discussion.
I do however apologize for having offended you.

Experience is not a requisite for abstract discussion.
I do however apologize for having offended you.
I did not intend to single you out. "You" is common usage for "one".

My point was that abstract discussion is a game, and this is not a topic for playing around.

Live long enough, and we all have to face this decision.

Okay, let's take a look at this from a different angle, because at this point I'm realizing this resolution is just to get people to accept an excuse.

Proactive actions require active decisions followed by actions resulting from those decisions. Passive actions are usually such things as reflexes or natural causes beyond the control of humanity.

Now, let's check what this "pulling the plug" amounts to. It is an active decision that results in an action of which the known consequence is the death of a person. Considering it requires an active decision, full knowledge of the consequences, and the hope it will work, it is far from a passive action. If it were caused by a freak lightning storm that knocked out electricity for the place where the patient was, then it would be passive (unless that storm was purposefully caused, at which case it goes back to active).

Unless you can somehow show me that this procedure has no active thought and no actions taken based on active thought, I see no evidence that it is passive. All of your dancing around it, all of your putting rainbows and smiley faces on it, and all of your trying to classify it based on surface differences are not facing the reality of it. The reality is it is quite active, quite thought-out, and the person committing the act has not only thought about it and decided to do it but is hoping the results will be as they have the knowledge of them being. It's about as passive as injecting a vial of poison into a person's arm at their request or shooting your best friend in the head to prevent her/him from gaining your money. And until you can prove that it is otherwise, I will continue to point out the reality of the action.


I don't like rainbows, as they have become a statement.
Smiley faces make me angry, they are all on prozac.
I hate children too. ;)

The problem is what is to be classified as passive. In the case of removing life support the decision is to terminate the active action of interfering with a passive occurance. The act of terminating the action can also be considered active, however pulling the plug is not the cause of death. The person would have died whether or not the pug had ever been plugged in.

In euthaniasia it is an active action to end a passive occurance. The person may or may not havedied if no intervening force occurred.

In one instance the outcome would have been excactly the same had the doctor never acted, cause of death and everything. In the second it is not the disease or condition that causes death, it is the Doctors actions.

I don't like rainbows, as they have become a statement.
Smiley faces make me angry, they are all on prozac.
I hate children too. ;)

For some reason, the image of a rainbow of living death with a huge smiley face setting children on fire popped into my head at that.

The problem is what is to be classified as passive. In the case of removing life support the decision is to terminate the active action of interfering with a passive occurance. The act of terminating the action can also be considered active, however pulling the plug is not the cause of death. The person would have died whether or not the pug had ever been plugged in.

The moment the active action happens to interrupt the interference, the occurance is no longer passive. If they die naturally, it's still passive. The case of pulling the plug is with the knowledge of hope of their death, making it and the resulting death proactive. See the issue about filling a person's room with poisonous snakes I brought up for an example of what you are justifying as passive with this.

In euthaniasia it is an active action to end a passive occurance. The person may or may not havedied if no intervening force occurred.

In one instance the outcome would have been excactly the same had the doctor never acted, cause of death and everything. In the second it is not the disease or condition that causes death, it is the Doctors actions.

Here is the difference between proactive and passive: Did it require an active thought that resulted in an action? If yes, it's proactive. If no, it's passive. this requires active thought that results in an action. Case closed.

There are massive differences.

Euthanasia is actively killing someone. You participate in their death. You precipitate it, and they die earlier than they would have otherwise.

Witholding treatment is not killing someone. It is allowing the natural processes of death take effect. You are not shortening their life, you are simply not artificially prolonging it. They die when they 'should' have.

Witholding treatment *is* actively "killing" someone. My country sees no difference between witholding treatment that doctors are obliged to give, and using medicins or methods to end someone's life.

Witholding treatment *is* actively "killing" someone. My country sees no difference between witholding treatment that doctors are obliged to give, and using medicins or methods to end someone's life.

In my estimation, last time i checked, medical care is NOT required, it is a service. Unless your nation has drafted a law saying that one MUST see a doctor if they are sick, witholding treatment, or not going to the doctor (which is the choice of the patient), is not actively killing someone.

If one is not to have stated what their wishes are in this case (and not able to speak for themselves), ones children and/or closest relatives are to decide whether the relative in question needs medical attention.

I have said my peace and counted to 3.

Lord and Commerce,

Emporer Rodinea

In my estimation, last time i checked, medical care is NOT required, it is a service. Unless your nation has drafted a law saying that one MUST see a doctor if they are sick, witholding treatment, or not going to the doctor (which is the choice of the patient), is not actively killing someone.

Providing medical care is a requirement the UN decided to endorse. Check RBH Replacement.

Actively killing someone, by definition, is making a choice that results in an action of which the consequences are the end of that person's life. Whether or not it is murder is where the circumstances speak.

If one is not to have stated what their wishes are in this case (and not able to speak for themselves), ones children and/or closest relatives are to decide whether the relative in question needs medical attention.

Which is covered under the euthanasia bill.

Thank you for correcting me.
But, I have read the RBH and RBH Replacement, and nowhere in either of those resolutions does it say that one must ACCEPT (this is where I stand corrected) healthcare. It is stated that healthcare be PROVIDED to all peoples.

Lord and Commerce,

Emporer Rodinea

Look, letting the brain dead person die is clearly legal, since if the doctor hadn't put them on the machines of choice, they would be dead. Keep that in mind!

Ok, so said patient is put on the machines, and like.. a year later, he/she/it is's condintion has yet to improve.Lets break this down

1.Person wasn't put on machines. He is now dead.

2.Person is put on machines, which is an artificial life, ok?

Now said person is taken off the machine. Essentialy, since the spouse chose to put them on, they can choose to take them off. 'Nough said!

Thank you for correcting me.
But, I have read the RBH and RBH Replacement, and nowhere in either of those resolutions does it say that one must ACCEPT (this is where I stand corrected) healthcare. It is stated that healthcare be PROVIDED to all peoples.

Lord and Commerce,

Emporer Rodinea
We believe you have misunderstood the representative from Groot Gouda.
Witholding treatment *is* actively "killing" someone. My country sees no difference between witholding treatment that doctors are obliged to give, and using medicins or methods to end someone's life.
The representative merely stated that doctors are obliged to give it, not that citizens are obliged to take the proffered medical services. We believe this is what the RBH proposals state as well.

Thank you for correcting me.
But, I have read the RBH and RBH Replacement, and nowhere in either of those resolutions does it say that one must ACCEPT (this is where I stand corrected) healthcare. It is stated that healthcare be PROVIDED to all peoples.

Which disagrees with what Groot said how?

Look, letting the brain dead person die is clearly legal, since if the doctor hadn't put them on the machines of choice, they would be dead. Keep that in mind!

Ok, so said patient is put on the machines, and like.. a year later, he/she/it is's condintion has yet to improve.Lets break this down

1.Person wasn't put on machines. He is now dead.

2.Person is put on machines, which is an artificial life, ok?

Now said person is taken off the machine. Essentialy, since the spouse chose to put them on, they can choose to take them off. 'Nough said!

Spouse never made the choice, assuming there is one. Doctors did.

Last I checked, the spouse made the choice to kill 'em, and the spouse could write to the docs to never put him or her on the machines.

And your avoiding the point!

Last I checked, the spouse made the choice to kill 'em, and the spouse could write to the docs to never put him or her on the machines.

Once again, you're assuming there's a spouse.

And your avoiding the point!

What point? You stated what is going on but provided no actual arguement for whether that is equivolent to euthanasia, is a proactive action of a slightly different category, or is a passive action and not equivolent. All you posted is a statement of events with no point to them in the context of this discussion.

I would endose this resolution as I would never want my Wife's wishes to be ignored. An individual should not be forced to remain in a vegetative state because their parents are unwilling to face facts

I would endose this resolution as I would never want my Wife's wishes to be ignored. An individual should not be forced to remain in a vegetative state because their parents are unwilling to face facts

See the Euthanasia resolution. This is already covered by it.

I can't reiterate enough that this is an intensely personal decision.

Government has NO place in this. The courts have NO place in this.

I can't reiterate enough that this is an intensely personal decision.

Government has NO place in this. The courts have NO place in this.

Agreed.

Yes, noticing that I have been pre-occupied with semantics I would like to focus on the real issue at hand; should this resolution be in the UN?

I believe it is a personal right not of UN concern. However, given that there is contention between the right to refuse service when in an unconscious state, or meeting certain circumstances which prevent a person from explicitly expressing their will to a doctor to refuse treatment they do not want, and euthenasia, requesting expressly or impliedly by one's actions that a Doctor intervene so as to actually terminate his life, I believe a resolution requiring the acknowledgement of pre-made refusals of medical service is justified. If we had not opened the door with Euthenasia I would not support any legislation calling for the recognition of living wills. However, the circumstances are so disimilar in substance that not accepting this legislation provides a loophole for a Euthenasia bill.

After making the above statement, I read our Euthenasia bill, and realized we are having this discussion because it is not very good. It inadequately addresses the problems discussed in this resolution, but discusses them. Therefore, the issue has already been discussed and acted on. The courts are already involved. It is already a muddled mess for fighting. Where a document can be signed and misapplied, etc... etc....

I would prefer government not be involved. But this makes a nice addendum to the original bill.

Okay, let's take a look at this from a different angle, because at this point I'm realizing this resolution is just to get people to accept an excuse.

Proactive actions require active decisions followed by actions resulting from those decisions. Passive actions are usually such things as reflexes or natural causes beyond the control of humanity.

Now, let's check what this "pulling the plug" amounts to. It is an active decision that results in an action of which the known consequence is the death of a person. Considering it requires an active decision, full knowledge of the consequences, and the hope it will work, it is far from a passive action. If it were caused by a freak lightning storm that knocked out electricity for the place where the patient was, then it would be passive (unless that storm was purposefully caused, at which case it goes back to active).

Unless you can somehow show me that this procedure has no active thought and no actions taken based on active thought, I see no evidence that it is passive. All of your dancing around it, all of your putting rainbows and smiley faces on it, and all of your trying to classify it based on surface differences are not facing the reality of it. The reality is it is quite active, quite thought-out, and the person committing the act has not only thought about it and decided to do it but is hoping the results will be as they have the knowledge of them being. It's about as passive as injecting a vial of poison into a person's arm at their request or shooting your best friend in the head to prevent her/him from gaining your money. And until you can prove that it is otherwise, I will continue to point out the reality of the action.



For what Tekania said, and what I said above. It is an active decision that results in an action of which the known consequence is the termination of the existance of another being. In this case, it is a mercy killing, the very definition of what makes euthanasia different from murder.



In reality, it is also murder if you do it without the patient's request. And, yes, there are quite a few doctors who do interpret it as a violation of the Hippocratic Oath due to the fact they are actively doing something they know will result in the patient's death.



Actually, Tekania, you are missing a very vital issue. Many of the people you are talking about believe the soul only leaves the body at the moment of true death. Your heart stopping for a few seconds is not true death by that definition. They go by the scientific definition of death. The other problem is some of those "dead" people have recovered from their condition, going on to live full lives and further disproving the idea they are actually dead. The exception is brain death, which is used by some doctors as a sign the patient is truly dead (others wait until the heart stops, and in certain situations the heart is used as a determining factor when it stays stopped for a certain period of time). But as long as the body itself remains alive, there remains, to those "compassionate conservatists", the belief the soul is still in the body.

As it stands, biochemical is all we have about signs of life that we can agree on, which is why it is used so much.

That is their own inconsistent logic, and not-viable for law. If a body is merely biochemically alive, with no consciousness, being maintained by machinery, then they are thwarting the natural course created by their God, and therefore thwarting their God's purposes. Acting against God, by their religious dictates, is the core of sin, they are sinners, and therefore, their own vocalized directives are against their own actual religion, and therefore they lose, regardless whether reasoned from their God's own laws and reasons, or from the secular law and reason...

Providing medical care is a requirement the UN decided to endorse. Check RBH Replacement.

Actively killing someone, by definition, is making a choice that results in an action of which the consequences are the end of that person's life. Whether or not it is murder is where the circumstances speak.

Which is covered under the euthanasia bill.


On the contrary, nothing in the RBH Replacement mandates medical care against the will of the patient... Which is the core of the issue here... Individuals do have the right to refuse treatment, and no existing NSUN resolution removes that right. Therefore the passage of a resolution provisioning that right amongst all NSUN members citizenry in no way contradicts existing NSUN resolutions. The RBHR merely provides a set of guidelines, requiring that services be provided... If they refuse treatment, the RBHR provides no authority to force treatment upon the individual. On the same token, the following of a DNR order is not a violation of the RBHR...

That is their own inconsistent logic, and not-viable for law. If a body is merely biochemically alive, with no consciousness, being maintained by machinery, then they are thwarting the natural course created by their God, and therefore thwarting their God's purposes. Acting against God, by their religious dictates, is the core of sin, they are sinners, and therefore, their own vocalized directives are against their own actual religion, and therefore they lose, regardless whether reasoned from their God's own laws and reasons, or from the secular law and reason...

And at this point they would brand you a heretic who would never understand and refuse to listen to you.

OOC:

Remember the Two Prime Contradictions of Christianity: Humans have free will, and thus may disobey God's will, and everything is God's will. They are conveniently used as needed to justify just about anything. Even being a Christian myself, I must admit there are a few contradictions. But this is what happens when you combine several tales intended to teach together without editting for consistancy. And, yes, I am of the opinion that most of it is intended to teach, and not the history aspect.

On the contrary, nothing in the RBH Replacement mandates medical care against the will of the patient...

Never said it did.

Which is the core of the issue here... Individuals do have the right to refuse treatment, and no existing NSUN resolution removes that right. Therefore the passage of a resolution provisioning that right amongst all NSUN members citizenry in no way contradicts existing NSUN resolutions. The RBHR merely provides a set of guidelines, requiring that services be provided... If they refuse treatment, the RBHR provides no authority to force treatment upon the individual. On the same token, the following of a DNR order is not a violation of the RBHR...

Actually, the core of the issue here isn't that. It is the question of "Is this actually different enough from Euthanasia to count as a separate bill?" None of what you have stated is ever really challenged, but that question of difference has been. And as of yet, I see no evidence that supports the idea the difference is great enough to count. If anything, considering the lack of description of methods, I would say all of this is already covered and all we are doing is debating an amendment.

Hey all, I am a new NationsStates member, from Thomasstan, and I have been watching the Schaivo case with interest both as a medical professional and as a politically active individual. As such I have created a proposal for submission to the UN, but since I'm a newbie I don't have endorsements..........so please, read my proposal and if you agree, I would appreciate the endorsement!

This resolution would deliniate the proper proceedures for allowing a terminally ill and unresponsive person to die.


CATEGORY: HUMAN RIGHTS
RESOLUTION NAME: The Right To Die

This resolution would deliniate the proper proceedures for allowing a terminally ill and unresponsive person to die.

1 - Chain Of Decision - Precedent is top to bottom
----Spouse or legal significant other
----Adult children
----Living parents
----Two Physicians (One must be unaware previously of case)

2 - Legal Documents
----Living Wills and Advance Directives will be made avaliable in all physicians offices, as well as Department of Motor Vehicles. Completion and notarizing will be free. An advertising and information campaign will be conducted to inform the population of the importance of such documents, and encourage them to complete them.

3 - Judicial Overview
----In the event of a challenge by a party not taking precedence in the decision, and only in the absence of a Living Will or Advance Directive, one judicial review, in a neutral court of appeals, will be allowed, so long as such appeal takes place within 48 hours of the decision to terminate life support.



This will benefit the world in many ways. First, it will allieviate the pain and mental anguish suffered by families trying to decide who makes the decision to terminate care. Second, it will accelerate the process of decisionmaking, thus ending the patient's suffering sooner. Third, it will effectively serve to redirect health care resources from the dying to the living, where much more can be done for the greater good. Finally, it will encourage the world's population to take personal responsibilty for their care in the event they become incapacitated, and by leaving behind a specific set of instructions will serve to improve the delivery of health care.



---------I will accept criticism openly, so blast away, and if you support this I would appreciate the endorsements!

OOC: I believe it's against the rules of NationStates to base any action, UN or otherwise, on real-life events. While you can emulate real weapons, this world isn't the real world.... However I could be wrong.

IC:
The Empire of Sidestreamer recognizes that God has given you the gift of life, and you are to live His will and purpose. You have no "right to die" until He has called for you by overcoming all efforts to keep you alive.

Allowing patients to deliberately die also conflicts with the hospital's role as a place for healing.

In defense of a culture of life, the Empire objects.

Welsh, Ambassador to the UN for the Empire of Sidestreamer.

Shout out to Thomasstan!

Yo, thanks for totally ignoring suggestions. Thanks for not even responding to them.

I'll be actively opposing this proposal now, telegramming anyone who endorses to get them to change their vote.

Form letter:
I see that you've approved Thosmasstan's Right to Die proposal.

Do you realize this proposal gives precedence to doctors over the expressed wishes of a living will?

I ask you to withdraw your endorsement and telegram Thomasstan to resubmit with corrections.

Apparently the anti-spam telegram timer is broken.
I was able to fire that off to all approvers in record time.

During our afternoon meeting, the Academe Cabinet discussed your proposal. While we agree in principle, we have a number of concerns:

This resolution would delineate the proper procedures for allowing a terminally ill and unresponsive person to die.

While we agree that the UN should require each of its members to recognize the right to die, and to develop a set of standard procedures to guarantee that right, we do not believe that it is the UN's place to mandate the specifics of these procedures.

(OOC: I essentially agree with Groot Gouda here.)


1 - Chain Of Decision - Precedent is top to bottom
----Spouse or legal significant other
----Adult children
----Living parents
----Two Physicians (One must be unaware previously of case)

While nations should be required to draw up such a Chain of Decision in their legislation, the specific ranking should be left to each nation to determine. For example, Academe recognizes marriages in groups of up to four adults. The "Spouse or legal significant other" line in our legislation would therefore need to be articulated in order to determine which spouse. In some cultures, it may be more appropriate for parents or an older sibling to decide. The proposal has a better chance of success if it can accomodate such variation.


2 - Legal Documents
----Living Wills and Advance Directives will be made avaliable in all physicians offices, as well as Department of Motor Vehicles... etc.

OOC: Again I defer to Groot Gouda. Too much detail.

Academe has a very thorough program by which we encourage our citizens to make and register living wills. We make the template for a living will and free legal counsel available at all Public Libraries. The DMV is not involved, nor will be.

We strongly believe that provision should be included requiring states or caregivers to provide proper pain management and end-of-life care to those whose lives are being allowed to end.

We withold final judgement on the proposal, pending the consideration of these concerns. When a final draft is proposed, we will hold discussions with the citizens of Academe. If it wins their support, I will personally meet with our UN delegate and urge him to endorse it.

OOC: Nice proposal overall :) But I would leave out any reference to current events in the final draft, both because RL references are not allowed in proposals/resolutions and because it seems to be stirring up a lot of off-topic controversy. Also, don't forget to tell us what kind of proposal it is -- i.e., what stats does it effect?

Regards,

Yes, noticing that I have been pre-occupied with semantics I would like to focus on the real issue at hand; should this resolution be in the UN?

I believe it is a personal right not of UN concern.

But personal rights are of UN concern. Sometimes, the UN (or a national government) has to say that they aren't going to say anything about something. In the case of the Sex Industry Worker Act, the NSUN decided that prostitution was legal, arguing that it's a matter of personal choice. The same thing could be done with this, as far as it isn't already covered by earlier resolutions. The UN can effectively bypass national governments and put the decision where it belongs: the people themselves.

And at this point they would brand you a heretic who would never understand and refuse to listen to you.

OOC:

Remember the Two Prime Contradictions of Christianity: Humans have free will, and thus may disobey God's will, and everything is God's will. They are conveniently used as needed to justify just about anything. Even being a Christian myself, I must admit there are a few contradictions. But this is what happens when you combine several tales intended to teach together without editting for consistancy. And, yes, I am of the opinion that most of it is intended to teach, and not the history aspect.



Never said it did.



Actually, the core of the issue here isn't that. It is the question of "Is this actually different enough from Euthanasia to count as a separate bill?" None of what you have stated is ever really challenged, but that question of difference has been. And as of yet, I see no evidence that supports the idea the difference is great enough to count. If anything, considering the lack of description of methods, I would say all of this is already covered and all we are doing is debating an amendment.

On that I would agree... It is not all that different than the Euthanasia Resolution...

Maybe a change in flux to more codification of DNR concepts would be better.