Euthanasia
The Free Republic of Lamoni has championed a better worded replacement for the current resolution that legalizes Euthanasia. This replacement still legalizes Euthanasia, but it provides a framework that is more organized, and will lead to much lower rates of abuse of the legal right of Euthanasia.
Euthanasia
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.
Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Lamoni
Description: Whereas there are many terminally ill patients taking up valuable room in hospitals,
Whereas The Free Republic of Lamoni feels that such patients deserve their dignity,
Be it proposed that: Euthanasia is made a legal choice in the UN member nations.
Provided: that the request is made by the patient in writing, that 2 certified doctors have met with the patient in order to verify the request, that the patient is still able to make descisions for themself, that the patient is terminally ill, and that the patient cannot be cured.
If these steps are not followed legal action can be leveled against the doctors according to the laws of the country in which the violation occured.
Euthanasia
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.
Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Lamoni
Description: Whereas there are many terminally ill patients taking up valuable room in hospitals,
Whereas The Free Republic of Lamoni feels that such patients deserve their dignity,
Be it proposed that: Euthanasia is made a legal choice in the UN member nations.
Provided: that the request is made by the patient in writing, that 2 certified doctors have met with the patient in order to verify the request, that the patient is still able to make descisions for themself, that the patient is terminally ill, and that the patient cannot be cured.
If these steps are not followed legal action can be leveled against the doctors according to the laws of the country in which the violation occured.
Unfortunatly, this is an National Issue. I cannot support this because I feel it's up to the nations on dealing with this subject.
i totally agree with Ichni Ni it isn't your place to decide :!: :!:
i totally agree with Ichni Ni it isn't your place to decide :!: :!:
That may well be so. Unfortunately for UN members, the matter is rather too late as the euthanisa resolution is already international law. As is often pointed out (and very graphically not so long ago) the that law was sloppily implemented and full of easily exploitable loopholes. Therefore it is beholden to us to attempt to plug the gaps that the old resolution had left.
I cannot comment further as I am not currently a UN member. I am just observing.
Pablovorsk
06-05-2004, 03:39
Description: Whereas there are many terminally ill patients taking up valuable room in hospitals,...
There is no way that the Commonwealth of Pablovorsk would support a proposal with this contained in its description. This highlights one of the commonly overlooked problems of Euthanasia. Patients that may otherwise see some benefit from future treatement may feel a burden on the health system and on friends and relatives, and see their own death as a way of relieving that burden. A resolution with such a description perpetuates such a percepetion and is a dangerous precedent to set.
Also, it would be better to make the useful distinction between Doctor assisted suicide (an act committed at the behest of the patient/candidate), and Euthanasia (an act that does not require the patient/candidate to give their consent - i.e., so-called 'mercy killings').
I should also add that you can't actually replace the old resolution. It will still remain as law. You can pass a new resolution that builds on it, however.
States of Stephenson
06-05-2004, 05:33
Unfortunatly, this is an National Issue. I cannot support this because I feel it's up to the nations on dealing with this subject.
His Highness agrees. This is a completly national issue. The UN must reform to protect the minortiy from the tyranny of the majority.
As to the issue of this being a national concern, A previous resolution passed 16 January of this year already took this out of the hands of nations and legalized euthanasia. I voted against that resolution because I felt the wording was too vague. This resolution will help to further define and clarify the loopholes that were left in the previous resolution. I approve this proposal.
//SIGNED//
Federation of Naval Powers
Regional Delegate for Sea of Unity
We also agree that the current resolution on this topic dated January 16, 2004 is too loosely worded leaving open dangerous loopholes to be exploited. Being that we cannot repeal the resolution outright, the only alternative is to pass another resolution that will better define the restrictions to euthanasia. This resolution as proposed by Lamoni will do just that. Encourage Regional Delegates to approve this proposal so that it will go to vote as a resolution.
Ambassador to the UN,
Incorporated State of Commercial Shipping
North East Cathanistan
06-05-2004, 08:00
His Holiness the Governor-General, understanding and supporting the sovereignty of alien nations, pledges his support to this petition.
[signed]
The Bishop Fred al-Rubei of The Directorate of Foreign Relations of The Dominion of North East Cathanistan
The Black New World
06-05-2004, 12:36
Ahem.
I should also add that you can't actually replace the old resolution. It will still remain as law. You can pass a new resolution that builds on it, however.
What they said.
Desdemona,
Sigless.
What I envisioned this proposal to be is an attempt to refine the wording of the previously passed resolution on Euthanasia. Since that is now set straight, I WILL repropose the proposal if it doesn't pass the first time. I am open to honest discussion on the proposal, though.
Mikitivity
08-05-2004, 07:14
i totally agree with Ichni Ni it isn't your place to decide :!: :!:
That may well be so. Unfortunately for UN members, the matter is rather too late as the euthanisa resolution is already international law. As is often pointed out (and very graphically not so long ago) the that law was sloppily implemented and full of easily exploitable loopholes. Therefore it is beholden to us to attempt to plug the gaps that the old resolution had left.
I cannot comment further as I am not currently a UN member. I am just observing.
Two thoughts:
First, as a UN observer you still should feel free to explain your nation's stance. You simply won't have to live with the outcome of the resolutions you don't like. But please don't cut your voice short on our behalf.
Second, my nation agress with Ichi Ni's position. The original topic should not have passed. One way to continue to protest that topic would be to vote against any proposal that encourages Euthanasia. Though I like the wording of this one better and my nation would be happy to consider adopting these standards, the entire topic just doesn't have international standing.
Who cares what color your underwear is? Apparently the UN does ... it likes to interfer with obviously domestic issues!
This does not reflect on the nation wishing to amend the original resolution though. I honestly think there are many existing UN resolutions that need to be improved and revisited. This my nation supports.
10kMichael
Lamoni: send your proposal to Enodia before you submit. He will tell you whether there is a problem with it as regards the previous resolution.
The Republic of Cacania declines the proposal of Lamoni because the number of the required doctors is too low. Anyway Cacania shares the opinion of Ichi Ni that this matter is an national issue.
Rehochipe
08-05-2004, 13:07
Yes, since a previous bill makes euthanasia legal already (if you're in the UN, read the past resolutions, people, 'cause they're law in your country) but we'd support these amendments - though I think you'd need to reword slightly in order to make it more in the character of an amendment rather than a standalone proposal.
Collaboration
08-05-2004, 23:24
That's putting it diplomatically.
More bluntly, if you don't reword this as an amendment and not as a replacement, it will get trashed. By official action.
Rev. draft:
Whereas there are many terminally ill patients taking up valuable room in hospitals,
Whereas The Free Republic of Lamoni feels that such patients deserve their dignity,
Whereas this proposal AMENDS the previous Euthanasia proposal, which had significant loopholes,
Be it proposed that: Euthanasia remains a legal choice in the UN member nations.
Provided: that the request is made by the patient in writing that at least 2, but no more than 5 certified doctors have met with the patient in order to verify the request, that the patient is still able to make decisions for themself, that the patient is terminally ill, and that the patient cannot be cured.
If these steps are not followed legal action can be leveled against the doctors according to the laws of the country in which the violation occurred.
Mikitivity
10-05-2004, 05:31
Whereas this proposal AMENDS the previous Euthanasia proposal, which had significant loopholes,
I know that a number of us suggested this, but based on the current misunderstanding the mods are having in relation to the UNEC Amendment, I'd advise treating the word "Amends" like a nasty icky poo word to be avoided at all costs now. :(
Once we get direction from the moderators back, maybe we can get over this having to avoid a single word, but right now just ignore everything the mods and other UN members have said in the past, because what they are putting into practice is different enough that we need a clear ruling.
10kMichael
imported_Final Final Infinity
12-05-2004, 03:12
THe wording mentioning overcrowding is a major drag on my view. What does that have to do with it? Is that the leading cause? I'm against it, but if its a amendment then it would be good to make it good.
I say get rid of that. Then I guess its good.
Pablovorsk says:
Also, it would be better to make the useful distinction between Doctor assisted suicide (an act committed at the behest of the patient/candidate), and Euthanasia (an act that does not require the patient/candidate to give their consent - i.e., so-called 'mercy killings').
Now I was under the impression Euthanasia was doctor asisted. Otherwise is it not suicide which is illegal?
"Overcrowding" in this sense means that the terminally ill have become a drain on medical resources. Since that is the case, why not let whoever wishes to leave this life do so?
This amendement provides a more complete framework for the already passed Euthanasia resolution, which is VERY vauge and abuse prone. So, don't blame me for the mix up between Euthanasia and doctor assisted suicide. Blame the nation that made the first Euthanasia resolution.
I want to know the instant that the mods come back with a ruling on how "amendments" work, if it's not too much of an inconvienience.