Federal Democratic Party - Request to make Euthanasia illegal

[Kowalski.]

DISTRICT COURT - CASE #02

Greetings to the Liberty Courts,

The FDP approach the Honourable Courts with a case on Euthanasia. We believe it should be declared illegal and it should be a criminal offense to give. We are aware of the previous case made by Mr. Monte Montague, however, we believe it's a shame he couldn't continue it, and we wish to create a new case as we believe that euthanasia should be declared unlawful.

To begin with, the Constitution of Liberty City states in Ordinance X:

"Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and safety of their person. A person cannot be deprived of those rights except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice or the interests of national security."

This is contradicted by euthanasia, as it's legal. This extract from the constitution very clearly indicates that the right to live cannot be deprived except in the accordance with maintaining the law and the only "lawful" kill(s) (the loss of life is always regrettable and avoided always) would be in the case of a law enforcer utilizing lethal force on someone who is committing a serious gravity crime which endangers our beloved citizens, in such case and in only such a case would a death not result in prosecution of the perpetrator.

Euthanasia is not in the interest of fundamental justice or national security, nor is it something to uphold the law. It is merely a murder, that is currently believed to be legal because it is requested. The Federal Democratic Party's members don't believe that asking someone to murder you should be justified as legal, for the perpetrator, and if the euthanasia fails, we don't believe it should be justified as legal for the person who requested it.

Our view on this is that anyone who is assisting the death of someone, even if requested, is committing an unconstitutional act and thus a crime, by depriving them of their right to live. A person can not deprive anyone of their life in any situation other than in the interest of where it may be required to save others.

Simply requesting "a euthanasia" from a medic is just not ENOUGH to make such death legal. It also puts the medic who may not want to or may not be comfortable with putting someone to death at risk of corruption in the course of their duties, or as a uniformed service person & even Manslaughter or Murder if they did go ahead with it due to family members who were not informed and as such may sue or seek prosecution for that act being carried out.

Killing a person, even if it is an officer saving many other lives by killing one person who is a threat to those many lives is not a nice thing, it can lead many years of trauma, remorse, regret.

In healthy humans, it is a natural observance to feel remorse for the death of others or death in general. Some fear death, some don't. However, the right to have euthanasia administered would legitimize acts of suicide.

There are many cases where people feel they wish to die. However, the reality of the situation is that when you die, you die. THERE IS NO COMING BACK.

We are surprised that it is legal, according to the law, that a life can be self-deprived if requested from a medic. Why must a death be legalized when there's no coming back? Why must it be legal for a medic to murder someone on request? Especially when they know death is irreversible?

People aren't given the choice to be born, nor should they be given a choice to die. Temporary problems should NEVER be solved with a permanent solution.

We understand people undergo stress at times, and problems overwhelm them. However, they should seek help, from a psychologist, psychiatrist (if needed) or even attend a social group or the like, to speak out. They should not be deprived of life, as it's a beautiful thing. Life being taken is a very sad encounter, and its extreme gravity causes others to have a burden. Relatives, such as a spouse, or sibling, or any relative may also want to be deprived of life because of their loved ones being taken. This should be prevented with the above, but the relative in question shouldn't feel that way at all, because of euthanasia taking their loved ones.

(Parts of Mr. Montagues case have been re-used here, most parts edited.)

Sincerely,

Dread Angiulo FDP Party Chair FDP Advisor

Steve McQueen FDP President Public/Legal Relations Lead Spokesman

Ethan Hunt FDP Secretary

[superh2o]

From:Courts of the State of Liberty
Frankfort Ave.
Liberty City, Algonquin

From: Liberty State People's Court Jury, Spokesman of Liberty City Jury Mane Jugovic

Let me start with this as the constitution is clashing with the law here, a constitution defines the principles upon which the state is based, the procedure in which laws are made and by whom. Some constitutions, especially codified constitutions, also act as limiters of state power, by establishing lines which a state's rulers cannot cross, such as fundamental rights.

There isn't only legal side in question here but moral and humanity.

While you are talking here as the euthanasia is first degree murder, its used in terminal cases where lose of life is guaranteed and euthanasia can save that human of more suffering by merciful death.

While saying that "Euthanasia is not in the interest of fundamental justice or national security or something to uphold the rule of law or anything of the sort." is true.

Here we are talking about denial of pain and suffering to a terminal medical case, euthanasia is in fact murder as that person is killed by a medic, but in the same time that person is denied pain and suffering that is off the scale in all terminal cases.

Terminal case means that there can be no cure to the illness of the patient, and the out come is pre set all that's left is to wait for pain and suffering to weaken the body and soul to that point where the death claims them.

While the doctors will give painkillers of highest degree to ease the pain and agony, best painkiller is in fact death, when we are talking about terminal cases.

In both cases the euthanasia is presented as something any doctor can do without any consent or anything, and under any conditions, while in fact he must have a request from the patient and a diagnosis of a terminal illness with consent from the doctor.

Also euthanasia cant fail due to the nature of the substance given to the patient.

Signed:
Mane Lucchese


Euthanasia is not a term you should play with if it was up to only me this case would be closed.
Anyone who seen there loved ones in terminal stages of cancer, and heard them asking for death or anything to remove the pain, would give the same to them.

This subject is not a joke and in game can be regulated wish ease if this was a hard core rp server, but its not, please do more research and don't just copy case that was made with little knowledge of the subject, while it did in fact clash with the law and constitution in same time, this subject is not so easy as to classify it as manslaughter or similar while putting some wild claims such that it can be done without consent of the patient/doctor/family.

Its not a easy subject and people who know of terminal cancer stages, like my self sadly wish my country allowed for such actions.

[Kowalski.]

Greetings,

The FDP believe that there should be strict legal regulations on euthanasia, should it be reasonable in the situation, and a simple request shouldn't be enough.

While the case you speak of is indeed reasonable, we believe that it should only be used for EXTREMELY severe cases and some sort of bureaucracy is involved.

Sure, it's reasonable with a terminal illness. HOWEVER, the bureaucracy should be involved to secure innocence, if euthanasia is given in a reasonable case such as a terminal illness.

As long as the euthanasia is at a minimum, regulated, FDP believes it would be alright.

Sincerely,
Federal Democratic Party HQ.

[superh2o]

From:Courts of the State of Liberty
Frankfort Ave.
Liberty City, Algonquin

From: Liberty State People's Court Jury, Spokesman of Liberty City Jury Mane Jugovic

The court recognizes the issue, we will see to come up with a solution in future.

For now, this case will be archived.

Signed:
Mane Lucchese