NationStates Jolt Archive

Argument: RECOGNISES that it can be painful to die slowly.

ALSO RECOGNISES that it is often painful for those close to someone to watch them in extreme pain and when they are suffering.

NOTES that it allows for next of kin to sign the required forms if the person conserned is incapacitated.

ARGUES that this could be wrong in various situations:

a ) when the next of kin stands to gain considerably by the person concerned's dying and this influences them into making a decision that may not be in the best interests of the person;

b ) and when the person concerned is suffering from depression, and is diagnosed with a serious illness, like cancer for example. The person could recover, but their depression may cause them to decide to be killed, even though depression is treatable and the illness may be curable.

EMPHASISES that this resolution is very vague about certain points, and that this leaves it open to interpretation that may not be in the patients best interests.

REALISES that it is an issue that is very complex, and cannot be catered for adequately on a global scale. This repeal does not prevent nations from keeping Euthanasia legalised and allows/permits them to set their own regulations for the application of euthanasia

DECLARES that NSUN Resolution #43 be repealed.

I have resubmitted this repeal proposal. I would like to say thank you to everyone who wrote constructive comments on the last attempt. Maybe this will be more to your liking.

I like it, other than the EMPHASISES line, which I feel could have been expanded upon. How is it vague? What are the possible abuses from this? I'd have also liked an outright condemnation of its use of the word God.

Please don't use color - maybe a line of dashes or something, but colors are just frustrating

Especially that blinding red.

Argument: RECOGNISES that it can be painful to die slowly.

Not to mention that for some people, they are in such horrendously poor condition that it would be acts of pure selfishness to keep them alive (vegetables)



Good

[QUOTE]NOTES that it allows for next of kin to sign the required forms if the person conserned is incapacitated.

Yeah

ARGUES that this could be wrong in various situations:

This is starting to sound oddly familiar

a ) when the next of kin stands to gain considerably by the person concerned's dying and this influences them into making a decision that may not be in the best interests of the person;

Don't care

b ) and when the person concerned is suffering from depression, and is diagnosed with a serious illness, like cancer for example. The person could recover, but their depression may cause them to decide to be killed, even though depression is treatable and the illness may be curable.

I actually fully support a person's right to choose that one. I think it is the full right of any human being to choose when they wish to die - or if they wish to live until nature or some other force takes it from them.

EMPHASISES that this resolution is very vague about certain points, and that this leaves it open to interpretation that may not be in the patients best interests.

Vagueness means that YOU can decide the resolution to that vagueness. I'm not going to support a repeal that bitches about being vague unless it's so vague that it does shit all

REALISES that it is an issue that is very complex, and cannot be catered for adequately on a global scale.

Debatable

This repeal does not prevent nations from keeping Euthanasia legalised and allows/permits them to set their own regulations for the application of euthanasia

True

DECLARES that NSUN Resolution #43 be repealed. [QUOTE]

Fine

[QUOTE]I have resubmitted this repeal proposal. I would like to say thank you to everyone who wrote constructive comments on the last attempt. Maybe this will be more to your liking.

Nope

Beware, Yuck factor in this post

There are several kinds of human (sapient) death:
-accident
-deseases
-murder
-natural death by Cellular senescence (for humans at least)
-self death

Many people in LAE think all of them have to be prevented, but tend to accept the one which is wanted by the concerned person. Of course this cases are sad and this is obvisouly not encouraged.

But we don't accept natural death on the only basis that it's natural; it's why we are proud of our Biogerontologists who have succeeded to increase the lifespan of mouses by X4, while staying "young" most of their life and have successfully achieved to stop the senescence of one kinds of human cells.

But most of the debate is about what mean Euthanasia "allowing to die" and or not "letting die". And this is not easy, because with the state of medecine nowadays it's pretty easy to keep in life not conscious patient for very long, but in the same time biogerontology is too far away to have reasonable hopes for them.

A friend of mine, who is Anesthesiologist, told me one day, "we are god, from our decisions we know if a person will live or die". This is very hard sorry, i told at the beginning of my post, but this is reality.

Not happy with this. I do believe there should be a euthanasia resolution, and although I'm not satisfied by the legislation that currently exists, I can't support this particular repeal. It contains a direct statement against a sovereign individual's right to choose his/her own death:

b ) and when the person concerned is suffering from depression, and is diagnosed with a serious illness, like cancer for example. The person could recover, but their depression may cause them to decide to be killed, even though depression is treatable and the illness may be curable.

I also can't support the following statement:

REALISES that it is an issue that is very complex, and cannot be catered for adequately on a global scale.

OOOO, aren't Change doing well with their seven replies?? How popular this repeal is looking, compared to all the other repeals which WERE'NT authored by any of you lot. Speaking of which, isn't your region losing members? At last count it had gone down nearly 30 in population. Shame.

OOOO, aren't Change doing well with their seven replies?? How popular this repeal is looking, compared to all the other repeals which WERE'NT authored by any of you lot. Speaking of which, isn't your region losing members? At last count it had gone down nearly 30 in population. Shame.

How the fuck does what region he comes from matter? Maybe you should take your regional snipping elsewhere, because I really don't see how it belongs in this thread.

OOOO, aren't Change doing well with their seven replies?? How popular this repeal is looking, compared to all the other repeals which WERE'NT authored by any of you lot. Speaking of which, isn't your region losing members? At last count it had gone down nearly 30 in population. Shame.

The real shame is that this is how you introduce yourself to us in your first post.

OOOO, aren't Change doing well with their seven replies?? How popular this repeal is looking, compared to all the other repeals which WERE'NT authored by any of you lot. Speaking of which, isn't your region losing members? At last count it had gone down nearly 30 in population. Shame.

Y'know, when I invited you to come to the forums to present your opinions, I wasn't giving you an invitation to start flaming people. The personal attacks are neither wanted nor called for. Considering you just received a warning yesterday from the mods, I don't think it's a good idea for you to boil what's left your chances.

Also - I should note, this is his second thread on the matter.

I agree and would support this resolution. I think it is the rights for individual contries to debate Euthanasia amongst themselves.

I am going to have to say no on this, a person should have the right to decide when their time has come, no matter what the situation, the least we can do is at least make sure they do it gracefully instead of splattering their brains onto a wall. The existing resolution preserves this rights for all people, even if their country is a theocracy or just won't allow it. With this resolution, those people who may be in pain from their sickness that is terminal are forced to wait until their body gives in and why knock them out with anesthia if we can just end it how they want, when they want?

The way I see it, people will always be able to kill themselves. This proposal just guarantees that they can do it painlessly and easily.

On the subject of next-of-kin rights, how could the next of kin benefit by a huge amount if the person was going to die soon anyway?

On the subject of next-of-kin rights, how could the next of kin benefit by a huge amount if the person was going to die soon anyway?


Well, that's their only argument that might've stood up to some criticism but obviously, it won't anymore. But I think that they believed that a next-of-kin might convince someone to end their life so that their inheritance might be recieved sooner, rather than later. Easy way around it: make it so the inheritance isn't recieved until X amount of years have passed.

The way I see it, people will always be able to kill themselves. This proposal just guarantees that they can do it painlessly and easily.

On the subject of next-of-kin rights, how could the next of kin benefit by a huge amount if the person was going to die soon anyway?

If he was unconscious (just say he was knocked out by a blow) but it isn't expected to be fatal, theoretically the resolution would make it legal for the next-of-kin to request the death of that person.

Now, that's at the full theoretical level. Unless it was a multi-day comma, I doubt the doctors would even turn to the next of kin for his opinion

There's also the question of disabled people.....but I'm not even going to go there.

I have ABSOLUTELY no issues with a person choosing when and where they will die. The area of Euthanasia I'm always edgy about is when someone gets to decide for another person when that person will die.

If he was unconscious (just say he was knocked out by a blow) but it isn't expected to be fatal, theoretically the resolution would make it legal for the next-of-kin to request the death of that person.

Now, that's at the full theoretical level. Unless it was a multi-day comma, I doubt the doctors would even turn to the next of kin for his opinion

There's also the question of disabled people.....but I'm not even going to go there.

I have ABSOLUTELY no issues with a person choosing when and where they will die. The area of Euthanasia I'm always edgy about is when someone gets to decide for another person when that person will die.
I suppose, but it should be replaced with something that avoids the next-of-kin problem if we repeal it...

I think that the situation with an arbiter choosing when a person is to live or die is if the person hasn't left explicit wishes in regards to what they want to happen to them, or there is no way they can speak for themselves (i.e. potentially lifelong comma, persisten vegetative state). But I don't think anybody would ever be truly happy with a proposal, saying it would give too much power to the next of kin or too little to them.

Well, that's their only argument that might've stood up to some criticism but obviously, it won't anymore. But I think that they believed that a next-of-kin might convince someone to end their life so that their inheritance might be recieved sooner, rather than later. Easy way around it: make it so the inheritance isn't recieved until X amount of years have passed.

That's too much goverment interferance IMO. What if a person's relations are poor? Making them wait would be rather cruel.

I think people will just have to responsible for making sure they're not suckered into ending their own lives. One is ultimately responsible for one's self, after all.


In any case, I do think there should be some rules on euthinasia. It would be a bad idea to let people with mental problems like Altimers or diagnosed depression have the choice to end their lives.

I think a required few sit downs with a doctor and a counciler of some sort before a person could go through with euthinasia wouldn't be to much of an infringment on a persons rights.

In any case, I do think there should be some rules on euthinasia. It would be a bad idea to let people with mental problems like Altimers or diagnosed depression have the choice to end their lives.

I would imagine that uncurable depression is an extremely valid reason for ending life. But I understand and agree with your idea of requiring previous counceling.

I would imagine that uncurable depression is an extremely valid reason for ending life. But I understand and agree with your idea of requiring previous counceling.

Is there even such a thing as uncureable depression? I've never heard of such a thing. Though certainly some people may suffer from depression for many years.

Is there even such a thing as uncureable depression? I've never heard of such a thing. Though certainly some people may suffer from depression for many years.

There is no such thing as untreatable, but that is far from calling it uncurable. It's the same thing as calling AIDS uncurable - you can limit the damage and control it to some degree by loading up on drugs (hence it is treatable), but there is yet to be a cure.

Bi-polar people are the most common kind of people affected by this - though the vast majority do take treatment.