NationStates Jolt Archive

Krambambuli opposes this resolution proposal and votes AGAINST.

Firstly, we want to strongly object to the sentence "Why should carers use up time on those certain to die, when this time could be spent with those with a chance of life?". Every single patient in whatever condition deserves utmost care!

Substantially, we oppose the proposal mainly - once more - because it's too vague; does it address the question of so-called passive euthanasia or also the one of active euthanasia? Whereas passive euthanasia means withdrawing or -holding medical treatment (e.g. by switching off machines), active euthanasia means actually doing something actively to end the patient's life (e.g. by injecting the patient with poison or an overdose of anesthetics). It is a small, but in our opinion important difference:

Passive euthanasia should be legal (and is legal in most legislations known to us) on demand of the patient (Reason: her/his unalienable right of self-determination) - expressed or (under certain strict prerequisites) presumed.

Active euthanasia on the other hand should remain strictly illegal (maybe with certain mitigations concerning punishment), because firstly humans should never by law be allowed to kill other humans unless it's self-defense (yes, Krambambuli opposes the death-penalty, too) and secondly because it could turn out to be a first step onto a slippery slope.
But it should be allowed to administer painkillers in an effictive way - even though this might lead to an overdose and the patient's dead (so-called indirect euthanasia) because the patient has a right to live and die free of pain if medicaments allow that.

It is thus our firm belief that we are not allowed to intently shorten a life but also not allowed to lengthen it against the person's wishes or to hinder her/him ending her/his life if this proves to be a deliberated step taken consciously.

Another problem with the draft resolution at issue is that it - under certain circumstances - leaves the decision to those closest to the patient (how is that determined?). We believe that it always is a decision of the patient alone - in the worst cases to be determined by exploring her/his former beliefs and status. And there should also be no obligation to wait 5-10 years, if only the certain prognisis is that the mecial condition is terminal.

Krambambuli also wishes to raise the question if this is a UN-topic or if it's not rather a matter left to national legislation.

We suggest that, once the regional government will be finally in place, our great region should discuss bringing in a resolution safeguarding the Patient's right of self-determination and maybe even the right to commit suicide.


The Krambambulian Minister for Health Care and Patients' Rights.

Euthanasia is legal in The Republic of Mikes Hope and yet we oppose this legislation.

Krambambuli has covered many points of dissent. Most important to Mikes Hope is a Nation's soveriegn right to determine its own course based upon the wish of its citizenry.

As Delegate We have a responsibility to reflect the consensus of the Region and will therefore withhold our vote until such time the Region's has voiced it's view.

Mikes Hope
UN Delegate

We oppose on different grouds. Euthanasia? There's no such thing as a certain death to us, you know? There's always a chance, however minute, of recovery. To pass it up would be wrong to us, yeah? But I repsect everyone else's opinions. Good luck guys.

---
Prime Minister of Zeeninstein
Peaceful Counselor
Hippie of Love

I agree; this is a terrible proposal. I think that in some cases a person should be allowed to refuse treatment, but this is not the same as killing a person. People should not be encouraged to commit suicide. Furthermore life is sacred. We should find ways to help those who are suffering, but this need not include choosing suicide unless the suffering has been prolonged over many years and the hope for recovery is all but gone. It is a tricky question. AIDS and cancer are no longer considered terminal illnesesses and therefore choosing life seems the better alternative.

If we encourage suicide we are encouraging giving up. What about those who are going through a bad time emotionally. We all go through hard times. Do we just give up or do we try to keep hope alive, however small that hope may be?

Athine

The Federation of Onn has voted against this resolution as well. These are the reasons in short:

- Such a law should not be forced upon unwilling nations, because I can see valid objections against the whole idea of euthanasia. So it should be purely a law passed on nation level not on UN level.
- Also the whole 'aaaaw' story at the beginning should not even be present in a resolution.
- Wording leaves much to be desired.

In Onn euthanasia is legal too, but it is strictly regulated.

Btw: another resolution is already in que.

---
First Citizen of Onn
"Ne humanus crede"

Euthanasia is legal here in Draxus. It is not our intention to force others to rule as we do. Draxus will vote against this resolution. Freedom to rule as you wish is more important than this poorly written resolution.

Dr. Axux
Social Engineering Specialist
Rogue Nation of Draxus

I agree with Onn and Mikes hope, Youth in Asia is legal in Weaselstien, but we do not like the wording of the resolution, therefor, we vote against.

Weaselstien

I will grant that the wording of the resolution is not the greatest, but the principle is there. I believe that individuals should have the right to decide if they want to terminate their own life, or delegate someone who can legally make the decision for them. I have voted in favor of this resolution.

Zonkerville

looks like you are against mikes hope.
anybody else?

Pretty much covers the region's point of view

Mikes Hope

From the desk of Chancellor Grove:
RE: The current United Nations resolution at vote.

The Federation of Jinzoism strongly advises the nation of Mikes Hope to vote against the current resolution. It is our belief that murder is murder despite the amount of suffering one must go through. Besides, there is something called a D.N.R that a terminally ill or old person can sign that says that efforts should not be made to resuscitate the patient.

Sincerely,
Chancellor Grove and the people of Jinzoism

An old man lay with cancer bedridden in a hospital with a projected live of a few weeks haveing been denied the right to kill him self he lay sad. % days later his cancer disappered. He has lived for 20 more years were he died at the age of 83.


This proves People can recover even if they are doomed.

I opposed this as a delegate because this is not a UN sorta thing. It is already an issue. And it should be decided in your own nation. Not in the UN. Also, in religious nations, life is held dear, and killing someone in this way is disgraceful.

Basically this resolution shouldn't be to vote in the UN at all.

- Also the whole 'aaaaw' story at the beginning should not even be present in a resolution.


Amen to that (have posted same complaint elsewhere :P )

I opposed this as a delegate because this is not a UN sorta thing. It is already an issue. And it should be decided in your own nation. Not in the UN. Also, in religious nations, life is held dear, and killing someone in this way is disgraceful.

Basically this resolution shouldn't be to vote in the UN at all.

Once more I say amen :lol:

The Grand Duchy of All the Russias is strongly opposed to this resolution. The legislation is too vague and too sweeping. This is not an issue that should be before the UN. I hope that all the proponents of the proposal are able to see that.

Two words that should set anyone's mind into a state of serious pause. The White Cows like children and like moms but are likely to oppose any legislation that begins with 'a child sat by his dying mom'. Euthanasia is a serious moral issue - The White Cows allow for it in specific circumstances with prudent safeguards - it is unwise to support vaguely written legislation that pulls at the heartstrings. Support for vague laws with emotional overtones is deeply, deeply unwise. Should a serious proposal appear with wise restrictions and safeguards The White Cows will support it...Again The White Cows commend Mikes Hope for salient observation and sound judgment.

There certainly seems to be a lot of opposition to this maudlin proposal, but it's still kicking butt in the polls. Why aren't you pestering your regional delegate to vote against this proposal? Even though Forum sentiment is strongly opposed, do we have to resign as UN Members to avoid getting stuck with this bad bill?

Get your campaign face on and work to oppose this. You belong to a region - use it! Or move to one where you can make a difference.

Frisbeeteria casts 30 Regional votes AGAINST this proposition.

The Holy Empire of Juanky votes against this for many of the reasons stated above.

If euthanasia is alright why not just legalize suicide?

Euthanasia gives the illusion of a fair and intelligent choice, when in reality such a choice does not exist.

This is by far the worst resolution I have ever seen hit the United Nations as being a resolution!


WHY? BECAUSE WE DO NOT CHOOSE TO BE BORN? WHY SHOULD WE HAVE THE CHOICE OF WHEN WE DIE?

It is, in my humble opinion, a gross misunderstanding of our place in the universe, to think that we, as just another species, should have the right to determine that life is meaningless if we are suffering and to choose to end something that we, ourselves, did not begin!

WHY? BECAUSE THE POTENTIAL FOR ABUSE IS SO INCREDIBLY GREAT!

When people are suffering as greatly as can be experienced, most are not in a state of mind that is rational and in some cases even coherent. What will stop anxious relatives waiting to inherit an estate from helping to persuade a person to go earlier than the universe has ordained?


WHY IS IT EXTREMELY BAD AS A UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION?

Because it is binding on all member nation-states if it passes and undermines sovereignty for all of us!

It will wreck havoc with many nation-states because of the way it will impact civil rights vs. political freedoms. It will impact on the character of every nation-states status!

WE IN SINOPIA URGE ALL FELLOW UN NATION-STATES TO VOTE AGAINST THIS RESOLUTION, BECAUSE WE SHOULD ALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO DEAL WITH THE ISSUE OURSELVES INTERNALLY, FOR THE GENERAL HEALTHY BALANCE OF POWER IN THE WORLD!

Artmoon, speaker of Sinopia,
West Pacific Region

All,

Opposed to this resolution. If we are passionate about opposing the resolution. It will be good to get your regional delegate to vote against this resolution.

Not only is this resolution completely vague it covers an issue which clearly should be handled by individual nations and not the UN as a whole. I may only carry three vote sin the UN but they are going against this rediculous proposal.

The Democratic States of Kynaz is shocked and appalled that such a resolution is even being debated in these fine United Nations. Euthanasia has been defined as the "mercy-killing" and yes, we love our family members and wish for them to be in comfort, however, this is violating universal law.

Sinopia has made a wonderful point when saying that we do not have the choice of when we are given life, why should we be given that choice to take it away.

One main argument that can rise against this whole issue is the involvement of religion as many worldwide religions would be against this proposition. I violates their own beliefs and creates a violent world for our countries to live in.

Consider this. Murder rates could rise in the world. Family members might kill another family member to gain some sort of huge financial gain and they could simply use the reason of euthanasia as the motivation for this vicious crime. The problem with this resolution is that we haven't thought it through. Yes, it may ease the pain of a loved one by pulling the plug, however, many circumstances such as the one I have outlined before could be the disappointing result. Therefore, to ensure that religious freedoms are upheld, and universal protocol is followed, the Democratic States of Kynaz feel that this resolution should be dismissed, forgotten and never spoke of again. Thank you.

While euthanasia has been legal in The Republic of Tiborita for years, we oppose this resolution. We feel the UN has gone way to far in involving itself in the affairs of member nations. This is a direct assault on national sovereignty.

Lyle Lanley
Tibotitian delegate to the UN

There are so many reasons to vote against this resolution regardless of whether or not one actually supports euthanasia.

We support euthanasia, but we do not like the wording in this resolution, we are voting against.