UN Proposal Legalise Euthanasia

[Jamzland]

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)?

[Jamzland]

Looking at this again I don't think I worded it very well, mabe it should have said 'If they want it' at the end of the first option.
Anyway I think it should be legal, living like that must be horrible and its the ill persons choice.

[Jamzland]

Sorry if someone else wanted to start this thread, I don't know how long the resolution has been up and I thought everybody might be too busy to start it. We have been very busy at the moment.

[Odracir]

Yes we have been busy. I voted against it SIMPLY, not WIMPLY, because I am Catholic, and believe it is wrong.

[TheNorthernIsles]

I'm not going to touch this one with a ten foot pole

[kaltania]

TheNorthernIsles said:

I'm not going to touch this one with a ten foot pole

Likewise.
Probably a wise decision.

[LoreSong]

After watching several people I love go through life-extending measures that were painful, decreased the quality of their life, and overall created more pain than help I am very much in favor of this proposal, or minimally a variant that does not unnaturally extend life where the body is relatively already "dead" without assistance.

Perhaps it sounds crass, and I do not disrespect those who treasure life as a sacred gift (I do too) but sometimes extending life is as much "playing god" as is ending it.

[TheSensitiveNewAge]

I believe it should be up the indiviual whether they live or die provided they are in a sane and healthy state of mind. The state can only go so far in determining values and I believe this issue is one of them.

[Boktavia II]

I agree with SensitiveNewAge. Euthanasia should be legal, but the choice should only be up to the sufferer to make, pending that they are in a sane state of mind. If the person is suffering and it is sure that the person is going to die, they should be allowed to be put out of their misery. This is a personal issue, and the state should stay out of it as much as they can by just legalizing euthanasia. (As a question: If this act is passed, doesn't it kind of make that euthanasia issue that we get obsolete or something? Are they going to delete that issue?)

[Grub (Lenlyvit)]

I'm going to have to disagree. I voted against this resolution.

Grub

[TheSensitiveNewAge]

I must say, this is an interesting proposal that requires some thought for a change. I would also like to say how great a region this is where we can rationally discuss touchy issues in a civil and thoughtful manner.

[Odracir]

Two things:

Grub, you aren't a UN member how did you vote?

And besides, apart from religious, moral, and ethnic views, the resolution violates each nation's sovereignty (sp?) as it forces the nation to pass a law that legalizes euthanasia. That violates the nation's internal affairs, and therefore it should be shot down. But vote how you please.

[Fleeb]

The tough part for me is how you tell what's euthanasia and what's something else.

Wherever there is a permission to take a life, there is always someone who potentially profits from that act.

I frankly doubt that without an absolute prohibition you can ever guarantee that elderly and other dependent persons will have their personal wishes safeguarded at the expense of heirs, care-takers, and others who stand to gain from their death. There are already plenty of documented examples in those countries where a form of euthanasia is permitted that there comes a subtle or not so subtle pressure for the weak and old to go ahead and get out of the way. That is not the world we want.

With all the sympathy in the world for those who suffer and those who love them, to prevent even more suffering and vast evil, we still must vote NO.

[Grub (Lenlyvit)]

Grub isn't in the UN, but I have other nations and I switch the UN membership around from time to time.

[Parthini]

I agree fully with Odracir. This would force UN nations to allow it and it would destroy national sovreignty. I have not decided on weather I would allow it or not in my country but that is a decision for each country to make. The UN should stay out of such controversial issues and let each nation decide lest the UN become some imperialistic state.

I will wait until I see a deciding factor in the poll to vote.

ASNP

[Boktavia II]

In my opinion, it's too late to stop the UN getting into national affairs. With every act passed, the Un forces every UN nation to take on some policy that many nations may not agree with, like the current proposal. The UN has already forced us to spend money to increase access to medicine, ban landmines and barbaric punishments, besides countless other things. How is forcing a nation to legalize euthanasia any diffferent from the other things that they have forced us to do, on the national sovereignty (sp.?) level?

Also, I'm not sure that the poll question is phrased entirely correctly. No offense, Jamzland. It's just I think that the question should be "Yes, people CAN be put out of their suffering", instead of "SHOULD be put out of their suffering". Should implies that the nations will be forced to kill anybody in suffering with euthanasia, while I think that the proposal is more just to euthanasia available IF somebody wants to.

[Jamzland]

Yeah I know thats why I said I had worded it wrong and said 'If they want to' at the end of the first question.

[Boktavia II]

Oh, sorry, didn't catch that. I still stand by my opinions, though.

[aleeproject]

Perhaps then the UN Delegate should not vote in this UN Proposal as to be representing both sides for and against?

[Parthini]

As the views are tied and it seems this is a very controversial law, I will vote against it. I have had many telegrams asking to vote against it and I believe it is a violation of national sovreignty. Again if you have any complaints or questions just telegram me.

ASNP

[Boktavia II]

I still really don't understand how this issue is a violation of national sovereignty any more than any other proposal we've had. If somebody gives me a sufficient answer, I'll probably change my view.

[Parthini]

I agree that most, if not all, of the proposals are violations. But I also believe that this is such a controversial subject that shouldn't be forced upon nations. They are forcing nations to allow people to have themselves killed! We should try to stop the UN from controlling all of our laws. Now that I think about it, this is really making me mad . This new proposal sucks. The friggin UN is FORCING UN nations to ALLOW PEOPLE TO KILL THEMSELVES!!!! WHAT IS this?!?!? Sorry for the rant but this new proposal sucks majorly. I strongly encourage all nations to vote against this. It shoudl be the individual nation's decision not the imperialistic laws of the UN.

ASNP

[Boktavia II]

You know, I see your point now and I guess you're right. If a proposal is so controversial and split that the vote is basically even, as it is here, then it is obviously better just to be left up to the individual nation. If a proposal like this passes, you're making about half the UN nations happy, but making the other half just mad and angry. I still have my stance on euthanasia, but since I can see that this is almost too personal an issue for the UN, I will change my stance on it.

[TheNorthernIsles]

I say New Parthini should vote against it! each indiviudual natin should make that choice not the UN

[EUtopia]

Although I agree with euthanasia in principle, I disagree with this resolution. It is badly worded and implies peoples choice to live should be taken away.

regards,
EU-topia

[TheSensitiveNewAge]

Yeah, I am voting against this measure now when I was originally for it.