Suicide
I was browsing recently and saw this.
Promote Suicide
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.
Category: Human Rights Strength: Mild Proposed by: Lantos
Description: Description: All countries of the United Nations must not only embrace but encourage suicide.
1. If a successful suicide takes place, the family of the deceased shall receive a stipend from said country's government not to exceed the deceased's yearly net income.
2. If an unsuccessful suicide takes place, a state sanctioned executioner will arrive forthcoming to dispatch said person most humanely (most likely with lethal injection or a very merciful bullet to the head)
3. Euthanasia is thus legal, to help those suffering from intense mental or physical anguish.
Thank you for your consideration,
Empress Alexis Franchesca Vivian Andais of Lantos
South of Limbo UN Delegate
Approvals: 0
Status: Lacking Support (requires 136 more approvals)
Voting Ends: Sun Dec 28 2003
The Federation of Soltak has not approved this proposal. [Approve]
I want to lodge my official objection to this bill. I don't think a family should be compensated because someone chose to take their own life.
Arguments about the logic of the resolution aside, it seems rather repulsive.
A state executioner. Ooh, that sounds like fun!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.
The state only exists to serve itself.
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic
of attractive women.
Arguments about the logic of the resolution aside, it seems rather repulsive.
I agree. While the Federation of Soltak does acknowledge the right of a chronically sick individual to euthanasia, it refuses to engage in state-sponsored suicide.
Collaboration
26-12-2003, 02:39
How could we prevent a greedy family from simply killing off their least desirable members in order to reap this reward?
We couldn't.
Putergeeks
26-12-2003, 04:58
The Great Nation of Putergeeks does not support this proposal.
The proposal was made to state a fact about suicide, it is foolish to attempt to ban it or to be totally for it. However it would be much more cost effective for a nation if there was not such a need for mental weaklings using up all the states money in psychiatric hospitals. If they are in such a condition as to not think they can contribute to society than why can't the state help them with that? It is akin to Euthanasia is it not? A mercy killing. In fact, it is much wiser than many of the UN proposals I have seen - I do not see a problem with it... if you do not agree with the proposal, do not vote for it.
Seeing that it was now taken out of the entire proposal category while so many stupid and useless proposals are left in confuses me. Is this not a role-playing game? And if my country is a dictatorship or a police state who measures citizens by their GDP how is this so wrong? You are all thinking like Democracies and the politics of this issue are not to ensure what you would want but what other countries would think of it. To a democracy this seems wrong because you are all so conserned with human welfare, why then would you criticize me if it would seem right to cull the field as it were? Helping to get rid of citizens who did not want to live anymore but needed help in ending it themselves.
The proposal also never said anything about having homicides pay anything to family members. In a society where every person recieves the same amount of money for a family, a death by suicide would be a tragic thing as they depended on that money for feeding other family members or whatnot. There could be a counceling service before they were actually euthanized, like a living will... "I do hereby understand and consent to the aforementioned agreement" essentially that their life will be ended but their family will be helped along by the government for a time.
Keep in mind the proposal was never said to repulse anyone - in many cultures it is survival of the fittest. But the difference is there it is homicide and this would be assisted suicide, with the persons consent. This is what I do not understand... if anyone cares to elaborate how this was inappropriate for a roleplaying game... please explain it to me. If you did not like the proposal it would have been a simple matter not to have voted for it.
The Allied States of Saeder Krupp most abjectly oppose this, and any other proposal of a similar nature. A suicide in any age group under 65 means the loss of a worker. A stipend paid to the family of the worker means even more money lost from the state. Encouraging either of these is not only foolish, it is disgusting.
A few random thoughts about the proposal:
1. "Human Rights" proposals are designed to promote human rights. The euthanasia business could well be a human rights concern - indeed the brief period of legalised euthanasia in Australia's Northern Territory was human rights-connected. However, "embracing and encouraging suicide" is a much broader bow than just "you are terminally ill, would you like a chat with Dr Kevorkian?" What you're advocating there is that if I see a guy about to jump off a bridge who chickens out, I have to call up the executioner to kill him off. Not necessarily a promotion of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" really, is it?
2. Additionally, how does the payment of an amount of money to the family of a suicide promote "worldwide human and civil rights"? In my understanding, it doesn't - unless the argument only relates to euthanasia. If our hypothetical bridge-jumper actually jumped, then his family gets some money. That's not human rights, that's just cashflow.
3. While I can appreciate that there might be some black humour here, it might also be a little too close to the bone for some.
This proposal is disgusting. I could never dream of approving something so attrocious. Leave it to the capitalists to hand out money for suicide...
suicide is one of dumbest things human nature ever thought of, other than liberals, communists, and the idea of banning guns.
A few random thoughts about the proposal:
1. "Human Rights" proposals are designed to promote human rights. The euthanasia business could well be a human rights concern - indeed the brief period of legalised euthanasia in Australia's Northern Territory was human rights-connected. However, "embracing and encouraging suicide" is a much broader bow than just "you are terminally ill, would you like a chat with Dr Kevorkian?" What you're advocating there is that if I see a guy about to jump off a bridge who chickens out, I have to call up the executioner to kill him off. Not necessarily a promotion of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" really, is it?
2. Additionally, how does the payment of an amount of money to the family of a suicide promote "worldwide human and civil rights"? In my understanding, it doesn't - unless the argument only relates to euthanasia. If our hypothetical bridge-jumper actually jumped, then his family gets some money. That's not human rights, that's just cashflow.
3. While I can appreciate that there might be some black humour here, it might also be a little too close to the bone for some.
I submit to you that all of the above mentioned items are true. The point being if you actually instated this bill who would want to consider suicide? Or afterwhich if an executioner did show up to someones house and they really didn't want to kill themselves - wouldn't that make them understand that their life was worth living? plus it would be a sort of counciling service - someone does understand and will be with you in the end if you do choose to end it. I see that as a deterrent, but indeed the idea was one of black humor. Akin to Swift's Modest Proposal if you will. I appreciate you actually having something of intelligence to say about it instead of "that is disgusting". I do enjoy an intelligent debate and I thank you. :)
I do not care for the part of the resolution that involves a stipend also. There is too much room for abuse. Family members may convince and coerce other family members into comitting "suicide" for the very reason to pursue wealth and recieve that stipend. There are some pretty twisted people out there. Remove this proposal or at the very least do not support it and let it die.
Nomadic Peoples of Anthonycha UN Representative
Hung Tony
The proposal itself has been removed, that was part of Lantos' criticism.
Lantos, it just seems to me that the proposal was a little "beyond the pale", if you understand my point. The euthanasia business is a great topic to debate and I encourage anyone reading this thread to give some thought to proposing something pro- or anti- euthanasia. The suicide bit, while clever and (now that you've explained it that way) very sly just seemed a little too questionable for the reasons I've explained - ditto the wrong category thing.
I'm also sorry for responding with only one sentence at the first instance. That was a post made in between Christmas festivities, so I didn't have the best opportunity to sit down and have a think about all the issues concerned.
While I agree with the afforementioned propossal, it clashes rather violently with a countries views on capital punishment. Certain nations believe that government sanctioned execution in any form is wrong.
2. If an unsuccessful suicide takes place, a state sanctioned executioner will arrive forthcoming to dispatch said person most humanely (most likely with lethal injection or a very merciful bullet to the head)
The death penalty for attempted suicide? That does not seem very reasonable...
The proposal itself has been removed, that was part of Lantos' criticism.
Lantos, it just seems to me that the proposal was a little "beyond the pale", if you understand my point. The euthanasia business is a great topic to debate and I encourage anyone reading this thread to give some thought to proposing something pro- or anti- euthanasia. The suicide bit, while clever and (now that you've explained it that way) very sly just seemed a little too questionable for the reasons I've explained - ditto the wrong category thing.
I'm also sorry for responding with only one sentence at the first instance. That was a post made in between Christmas festivities, so I didn't have the best opportunity to sit down and have a think about all the issues concerned.
I do understand that it was in bad taste but that really was the point of it.. to make people think. It did grab a good bit of attention and was much more interesting (in my opinion) than all of the "Legalize Marijuana, Prostitution... Universal Whatever Day" that I have had to wade through lately. It was mostly the production of extreme boredom and lack of mental challenges. I do understand that you did not have time to respond with flourish also my apologies for everyone who is so upset over the proposal (boohoo). I just want to bring to attention that there are other kinds of nations where odd things would seem to make more sense there than in democracies. I still thank you for being the only one to think it through rather than offhandedly dismissing it.