Legalize Euthanasia

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)?

I'm opposing this one. While I like the intention, the author of this resolutoin has, like so many people, tried to take a broad idea that is worthy of consideration, and has instead "over-legislated" it at the UN Resolution stage, thereby making it unworthy for adoption.

To me, if there is a right to life, there is also a corresponding right to choose to end your own life. I think that a broad UN resolution demanding that the right to choose death be recognized by all member nations is reasonable.

However, this resolution goes beyond that and starts interfering with the rights of each nation as to how to particularly legislate the broad right to choose death.

By speaking of specific "5-10 year rules" for people in comas, and allowing circumstances where third parties could decide that someone should die, the resolution goes beyond a reasonable intent, and starts to unreasably interfere with individual nations legislative rights.

This is a resolution that is ripe for a re-write into a more appropriate form. A simple "humans have the right to die with dignity - be it resolved that all member nations will recognize the right of an individual to choose to terminate their lives in situations where the individual has left clear instructions to do so" would have sufficed, and been far more appropriate.

As such, I'll be voting against this one when it goes to a vote sometime on the 12th.

Euthanasia is too complex a concept to be dealt with across national boarders by an organisation like the UN. Cultural and Religeous concerns in each Nation State should dictate the national adoption of Euthanasia Laws. Also its complexity is not done justice by the UN Resolution.

The UN would not undertake to define a religeon for all of its members. As such I doubt it is appropriate for it to tell its members how they should deal with the subject of death. It is after all one of the most mysterious spiritual or religous questions of all. Do we have a soul? What happens to it when we die? Isn't that the basis of religeon?

The resolution makes no mention of the mentally ill, or any consideration of the phrase "sound of mind". By its rules it allows for the mentally ill to be bumped off by their relatives, as the desicion is made on their behalf.

How can the UN trust every physician in every member state to give the right, and unbiased advice? How does it intend to regulate what constitutes a "professional medical" practitioner?

For an issue as complicated as this, the resolution needs to be immaculately worded or left well alone.

Other than the freedom of Worship, an issue that has more to do with Civil Rights, the UN has no place in religeous discussion. For it to engage in the prescription of religeon would be to deny Freedom of Worship.

very true, and unfortunately I don't feel that this was immaculately worded

Based on our poll, I voted against the Resolution.

However, the resolution passed by a vote of 10810 votes to 10031, and will be implemented on all UN member nations.