NationStates Jolt Archive

If the current resolution passes, I intend to make the following proposal. Please post feedback on any modifications you would recommend before I attempt this.

WITHDRAWAL OF LEGALIZATION OF EUTHANASIA RESOLUTION

WHEREAS the United Nations was formed for the dealing with international issues and peacekeeping

WHEREAS the governing of individual nations and imposing laws unrelated to international relations was not its intended purpose

WHEREAS there have of late been proposals of this nature, namely the mandate legalization of euthanasia

WHEREAS the legalization of euthanasia in a nation has no effect on other nations

WE HEREBY PROPOSE to rescind the recent resolution mandating all UN Nations legalize euthanasia, returning this decision to the governments of each individual nation.

I urge all delegates to vote for this proposal as soon as possible. Sofa King Country will lend its support if this is ever put to a general UN vote. If this proposal is put into the queue before the euthanasia vote ends, we would consider remaining in the UN.

The Dominion of Krasblakia is in full support for the legalization of euthanasia! We feel that no group should have a say in an individuals RIGHT to die with dignity. People should not be forced to live in pain, without any hope of recovery, just because another person disapproves.
This is an important issue that needs to be addressed with intelligent reasoning, and not with religious views.

The Dominion of Krasblakia is in full support for the legalization of euthanasia! We feel that no group should have a say in an individuals RIGHT to die with dignity. People should not be forced to live in pain, without any hope of recovery, just because another person disapproves.
This is an important issue that needs to be addressed with intelligent reasoning, and not with religious views.

This is an important issue that needs to be addressed with intelligent reasoning, and not with religious views.

No religious views have been cited here. All that has been cited is the right of a nation to govern its people. We the People's Republic of Crystal Isle support national sovereignty, and will seek to preserve it.

Also, in response to the comment of Sofa King Country, while we appreciate your support, this will not be made a proposal until (unless) the current resolution is passed. We feel it would be frivolous to try to repeal an unpassed resolution, when it still has the potential to be voted down by conventional means.

The United Star Empire of Valinon, as a regional delegate, will support this measure if the stupidty of the current resolution is allowed to past. We will stand in full accordance with this resolution.

but still, it is so obvious. the only view that could possibly try to rationalize itself against such an issue could only be a "religious" one. any other intelligent view could not defend a position against it. that is my reasoning for calling this a religious opposition.
if this assumption is incorrect, then give us your non-religious explaination for justifying an opposition to the right to die, and prove Krasblakia wrong.

I am against the proposition as stated

I voted that it should be legalized. I did have a problem with part of it though. The proposal said that if a person is in a coma 5-10 years that close ones to that person may decide if they want to euthanize them. A person should ALWAYS be able to choose for themselves. They should have that written down somewhere that if they ever were to go in a coma that they want to be euthanized in a certain amount of years.

This resolution is moot; the current one legalizing euthansia hasn't even been passed yet, this is not even valid.

That being said, the Incorporated States of Exonerate recognizes the right of each individual to terminate their own life if they wish to. We also refuse to recognize religion as a valid argument, as religion should have no bearing on a country's policy. Furthermore, citizens should not have their rights taken away because of the religion of others.

If the other resolution passes, I will vote for this one. It is a lot more logical and a lot less emotional.

but still, it is so obvious. the only view that could possibly try to rationalize itself against such an issue could only be a "religious" one. any other intelligent view could not defend a position against it. that is my reasoning for calling this a religious opposition.
if this assumption is incorrect, then give us your non-religious explaination for justifying an opposition to the right to die, and prove Krasblakia wrong.

I do not wish to seem to be calling names, but this statement makes you appear very ignorant. If you peruse just a few of the multitude of boards regarding this resolution, you will find numerous oppositions to it, very few of which involve religion at all. One of the major objections is that legal loopholes allow this legalization to be greatly abused, from killing for inheritance to genocide. As there are many others as well, I urge you to read some of the boards discussing the resolution itself. This board, however, was created for the discussion of a proposal to *repeal* the resolution, so I would appreciate if people try to stay a bit more on topic :)

The global legalization of euthanasia directly conflicts with the religious view of a large percentage of the world. While we understand and tolerate your views, we ask you to please force us to compromise our own beliefs, especially on private matters that do not concern international relations. You say that death is a fundamental right. We do not agree. In fact we believe that life in a fundamental human right, and that we have both the right and the obligation to live our lives to their fullest extent, regardless of circumstance. We have been given our lives, they are a gift from God. We have no right dispose of them.

While you may not agree with me, please respect my beliefs and vote against the worldwide legalization of euthanasia.

The answer to life's problems is not death. The solution must be found another way.

Doug Gates
The Holy Republic of Fidesia

WHEREAS the legalization of euthanasia in a nation has no effect on other nations



The Republic of Firesky is supporting the vote to legalize Euthanasia, yet we also agree with the above statement. A Nation should have the right to decide for it self over this issue. Perhaps though, a UN vote would insure that if a Nation did pass this law, the Nation it self would not be looked down upon by other Nations in the UN.

WHEREAS the legalization of euthanasia in a nation has no effect on other nations



The Republic of Firesky is supporting the vote to legalize Euthanasia, yet we also agree with the above statement. A Nation should have the right to decide for it self over this issue. Perhaps though, a UN vote would ensure that if a Nation did pass this law, the Nation it self would not be looked down upon by other Nations in the UN.

I do not disagree with you, Firesky, but rather would like to clarify for you, as you seem to not fully understand how the UN works in this game. If the resolution to Legalize Euthanasia is passed, it will make euthanasia legal in all UN members. You seem to think that it would somehow give them an option as to whether the law be passed in their own country; it would not. The resolution automatically becomes law in ALL member nations, leaving no "right to decide".


To clarify in brief (to all):

Voting AGAINST this resolution leaves the situation as it currently stands, that is, the decision on whether euthanasia is legal is made on a NATIONAL LEVEL (each nation has a right to choose).

Voting FOR this resolution requires that every nation that is a member of the United Nations offer legal euthanasia under the terms and stipulations outlined in the resolution.

also, on a side note

I have recently been ejected by my region (Atlantic) without warning or explanation. I therefore currently have no endorsements, making me ineligable at this time to make a proposal.

If any one has a region that they wish me to be a part of, please telegram me, as I am currently "in the market". I do not need to be a delegate, I just want to have a voice in an active region.
...Of course, it wouldn't be *that* bad if it happened to be a region in which I ended up with such overwhelming support that I became the new delegate :twisted: hehe

Resolution not in order - game mechanics.

~Goobergunchia [who is too lazy to log in to his main nation]

The Republic of Palandra respectfully endorses this proposed legislation should the the current ban on euthanasia be lifted.

A person's life cannot be measured in the amount of joy or discomfort they may experience. I say this not to diminish someone's pain of either having a terminal illness or watching a loved one die in a horrible manner. Human life is a gift to be treasured.

Personally I know all too well the agony of watching a loved one pass from a terrible disease. It angers and saddens me to think of her suffering. But when we, as a people, decide who can live and who can die, we begin to descend into a very gray area. After all, who can decide the worth of a person's life?

I mean to approach this very emotional issue from a personal side. I know people may disagree with me and that is fine. But I must vote to keep euthanasia illegal.

According to the purpose of the United Nations, the resolution currently at vote cannot be passed. The United Nations does not have the right to mandate anything that does not deal with international matters. The matter of Euthanasia clearly is not an international matter. It is up to every sovereign nation to choose for itself whether to legalize Euthanasia. Religious arguments have nothing to do with this matter. It is a matter of the limits of the United Nations. The United Nations cannot mandate a local matter. Therefore my fellow delegates, I must urge to join the negation of the bill at vote, and if that resolution is passed, support the proprosal mentioned above.

The Democratic States Of Storal has decided to vote against this proposal. Though we do feel for those who are suffering there has to be a better way than simply killing themselves. Besides who really wants to die anyways?

Lysander Jacobs
President of storal

...But I must vote to keep euthanasia illegal.

Actually, there is no current international ban on euthanasia. As I have said before, the decision is currently a national one. So your vote isn't actually to "keep euthanasia illegal" but to "leave the decision in the hands of the nations" :D

Quote:

"WHEREAS the governing of individual nations and imposing laws unrelated to national relations was not its intended purpose"

Should it not be "imposing laws unrelated to (international) relations?

This resolution must go down or be repealed shortly after. You have the full support of The Grand Duchy of All the Russias.

Tsar Mikhail Romanov I

The United Nations does not have the right to mandate anything that does not deal with international matters.

Yes it does. Read the FAQ.

Should it not be "imposing laws unrelated to (international) relations?
Tsar Mikhail Romanov I

Fixed :)

This resolution is moot; the current one legalizing euthansia hasn't even been passed yet, this is not even valid.

Yes but the measure is set to pass handily.

That being said, the Incorporated States of Exonerate recognizes the right of each individual to terminate their own life if they wish to. We also refuse to recognize religion as a valid argument, as religion should have no bearing on a country's policy. Furthermore, citizens should not have their rights taken away because of the religion of others.

Fine, if someone wishes to take their own life, that's fine. But the resolution does 4 things that my nation is vehemently opposed to. 1) The U.N. is overextending it's charter. 2) It takes away a sovereign nation's right to set their own laws in regards to this issue. 3) It allows assisted suicide...which I am opposed to in that if somone truly wishes to take their own life...there's 1000 different ways to do it. If they can't do it, perhaps they lack the resolve. 4) It allows someone who cannot make the decision to live or die due to incapacity, make the choice for them. Who will make that determination. As humans, we all have the right to exist first and foremost and Slaytanic Islands strongly resents anyone determining if a helpless person has the right to live or die.

The Dominion of Krasblakia is in full support for the legalization of euthanasia! We feel that no group should have a say in an individuals RIGHT to die with dignity. People should not be forced to live in pain, without any hope of recovery, just because another person disapproves.
This is an important issue that needs to be addressed with intelligent reasoning, and not with religious views.

Krasblakia has obviously not given this issue the depth of thought it requires, there are far more pressing reasons than religion for defeating this proposal. The wording of the proposal would allow enforced euthanasia to be inflicted on people who have nothing wrong with them other than requiring care. The proposal states this!!!! Read it again! The proposal is not about the legalization of euthanasia, it is a bill of rights for abuse!

The Most Serene Republic of Istahan will vote for this proposal, should the current resolution be passed.

but still, it is so obvious. the only view that could possibly try to rationalize itself against such an issue could only be a "religious" one. any other intelligent view could not defend a position against it. that is my reasoning for calling this a religious opposition.
if this assumption is incorrect, then give us your non-religious explaination for justifying an opposition to the right to die, and prove Krasblakia wrong.

Simply put - one may (or may not) have the 'Right to Die'; but this is a PERSONAL decision - and a personal right. The State has NO right to interfere in any manner - whether it is to prevent - OR ASSIST. It also has no right to force one to assist against their wishes.

You want to kill yourself? Go ahead. (Really. I mean it.)

You want me to help? You can ask - and I might, depending on my views on the topic. But if I don't want to, I shouldn't be forced to, no more than you should be forced to exist because I might disagree with euthanasia.

You have this illogical idea that, because one has the Right to Die, their right also supersedes others moral and ethical grounds against that decision. This is an arrogant, totalitarian - and frightening - attitude to take.

Game mechanics do not allow for repeals, sorry.

Catholic Europe totaly supports this proposal.

The King wishes to express his support for this resolution. Indeed, if it, or any other resolution ment to nullify the effect of the Legalize Euthanasia resolution, if said resolution is passed, will enjoy the support of The Kingdom of Ormal.

For His Royal Highness al’Aiglos, High King of Ormal, Wielder of the Dragon Sword, Lord of the house of e’Gothoridrim, Defender of the Faith,
Galad e’Gothoridrim, Royal Secretary and Scribe.

we are in accord with the reasoning of this proposal and will be of any help we can

Hmm; joined the UN yesterday, so first post.

I think Euthanasia should be legal, and that religious views should not affect the views of others, even within one nation.

Certain rights are paramount, and override state sovereignty.

However, I have voted against the Euthanasia proposal as written. It is porrly thought out and worded, and offends too many.

It looks like it will pass, so the above resolution would have my support.

When does voting end anyway?

If you can use complete sentences, I will vote for the proposal.

The Theocracy of Newmanity and all states residing within The Newmanated States will not lend their support to the repeal of the Euthenasia Act should it be passed on the 16th of January 2003.

While we wholeheartedly support the right of people to commit suicide, assissted or not, this resolution has a loophole that would allow people other than the person in question to determine his fate. For that reason, we have changed our vote to the negation of this resolution.

While we wholeheartedly support the right of people to commit suicide, assissted or not, this resolution has a loophole that would allow people other than the person in question to determine his fate. For that reason, we have changed our vote to the negation of this resolution.

so giving a person the right to choose to live or die is more important than the right of a nation to choose to base their choice of policy from a religious pov?

Fine, if someone wishes to take their own life, that's fine. But the resolution does 4 things that my nation is vehemently opposed to. 1) The U.N. is overextending it's charter. 2) It takes away a sovereign nation's right to set their own laws in regards to this issue.

As in many of the UN proposals, Slaytanic, you got it in one. Most proposlas simply violate all national sovereignty issues, allowing individual nations (and those who do not think through the ramifications) to press their political beliefs on others. Is the UN a colleciton of individuals or of nations? This proposal, like many others, takes the view that the UNITED NATIONS is a collection of individuals, when it clearly is not. Overextending its charter? I don't think many of those who vote or propose resolutions realize there IS a charter.

The Dominion of Krasblakia is in full support for the legalization of euthanasia! We feel that no group should have a say in an individuals RIGHT to die with dignity. People should not be forced to live in pain, without any hope of recovery, just because another person disapproves.
This is an important issue that needs to be addressed with intelligent reasoning, and not with religious views.


you want nonrelegious reasons ok here's a story, A man lay in bed prediceted only to live, he begged to be allowed to kill him self. Two days before he was predicted to die he recovered. He lived 20 more years then died at 83.

If it dose pass everyone aginst it make a bunch of regions with 2 UN nations and then we will have enough delegets to press to proples if it is needed.



P.S. i doubt this will happen.

Why is it that the proposals that will hurt our nations mor than help always pass and the ones that help them all most never pass.

This should not be legalized... my people know that god has a path for them and me myself as a pharo speak through the words of the god. People can not play the role of god! and never should to.

Now my real opinion, yes this pain is over whelming but it is possible too deal. imagin the guilt on this childs face for doing this. he did not want to lose his mother but rather wanted her to get better.... even if its not possible getting over... a childish hope can only be deterierated by the one thing and that is a lose of a loved one...

If this goes through and passes which at this point it looks like it will, I will definately support its repeal and write it up if no one else will. Come on people this should be an issue not a UN proposal plain and simple. As an issue each nation can decide for itself. If this passes this bill/law whatever will effect the moral composition of every nation in the UN. Personally I wouldn't allow Euthanasia in my nation, I know that not everyone agrees with me but I think its wrong not only from a religious standpoint but a scientific one as well. New medical miracles occur everyday, people may give up too soon. Now this shouldn't be about whether or not you believe in Euthanasia but because this bill is badly written and shouldn't have been written for the UN at all.

Queen Shy Butterfly of Lovebug - North America

If you can use complete sentences, I will vote for the proposal.

The proposal is formatted as it is intentionally, not because I lack writing skills, but because this is the traditional/proper/official format for U.N. proposals (or as close to it as I could reconstruct from memory).

hell im voting for tha, i would make 1000 countries and vote for that, but im not gonig to cuz then there would be complecations.... but im all teh way with u

It is unfortunate that most nations who will vote on this issue will not have witnessed the debate in this forum. Most will simply view the subject of Euthanasia on a personal level, and not think of the international ramifications of their decision.

Where is the need to take this issue internationally? Euthanasia is at best a moral quandary, and at worst a state-sponsored murder of its own populace. Who will be administering the deaths of all these people? Doctors?? Not only is it in contravention of their Hippocratic Oath, it is immorral to force such a duty on a nation's professional healers, simply because a nation wished to uphold the ideals of the UN. If not doctors, then who? Family members? A whole new profession devoted to killing inncoent people?

No one is saying that you can't decide this issue in your own nations. Let's not enforce it on others. It is immoral, unethical and in complete contravention of the purpose of the UN.

The Dominion of Greater Oshawa, who steadfastly opposes this legislation, will most undoubtedly back any resolution which would see it repealed. We implore that all regional delegates do likewise.

AS A DOCTOR I NEVER CEASE TO BE HORRIFIED WHEN I COME UP AGAINST THE MISINFORMED PREACHING AND ADVOCATING EUTHANASIA TO THE IGNORANT!!

MEDICAL SCIENCE IS SUPPOSED TO PROGRESS TO CURE DISEASE AND ALLEVIATE SUFFERING NOT BE USED TO KILL BECAUSE IT IS TOO MUCH OF AN EFFORT TO USE WHAT IS AVAILABLE TO TREAT AND ALLEVIATE SUFFERING!!

THIS WHOLE ISSUE IS IRRESPONSIBLE AND INCREDIBLY STUPID. WHEN THIS PROPOSAL IS PASSED I'M WITHDRAWING FROM THIS 'U.N' AND I MIGHT DECIDE TO ABANDON THIS GAME ALTOGETHER.

The Rogue Nation of Greenspoint would like to humbly and respectfully inquire as to what we could possibly do to get the Republic of Nopoofs to turn OFF their capslock when posting.

I hate to become the bad guy in your forum, but have any of you ever had a relative or close friend who has been in so much pain that they wanted to go. Go speak to someone who is near death, they are always calm and ready to accept it. Or look into the eyes of someone in pain and tell them that you dont think they have the right to die.

On a more political level, if the resolution gets passed it will be because a majority of people agree with it. If you post one saying we should remove it, what makes you think that the majority that legalised it will not simply reject your resolution?

Since it has increasingly come to my attention that repeals may not be possible in the current UN system, I would like to instead suggest an amendment be created. I would be willing to write it if necessary, but having read this issue up extensively on the boards I have come to see that others would be much more qualified for this.
If no one else wishes to step forward, of course, I'd be glad to write it by compiling the various problems and arguments that have been put forth by others. The primary purposes I would see in such an amendment would be:

a) Removing loopholes that allow for serious abuse of this resolution
b) Creating more freedom for nations who currently oppose euthanasia to decrease it (including, but not limited to, a doctor's right to reject a request for euthanasia, elimination of or stricter procedures on euthanasias decided by others, and elimination of the age-based euthanasia clause).

Please post and let me know what you think should be included in such a proposal.

(PS-do you think I should make a separate board for this, as it is no longer on the subject of the *repeal* of the resolution?)

I believe I saw an Amendment to the Euthanasia Resolution already in the Proposal list...

I believe I saw an Amendment to the Euthanasia Resolution already in the Proposal list...

oh...well, i would've thought it would make more sense to wait until after the resolution itself passed, but...ok

*returns from reading proposal*
wait...that ends today. so let's continue this anyway. and while the amendment was very good, if we work together we may be able to make one even better

The euthanasia issue at vote is horrifying in the sense that it's in a position to be passed! Something must be done to counteract this resolution and I would rather have the doctors in my nation spend their time researching new treatments rather than killing their patients.

I hate to become the bad guy in your forum, but have any of you ever had a relative or close friend who has been in so much pain that they wanted to go. Go speak to someone who is near death, they are always calm and ready to accept it. Or look into the eyes of someone in pain and tell them that you dont think they have the right to die.

On a more political level, if the resolution gets passed it will be because a majority of people agree with it. If you post one saying we should remove it, what makes you think that the majority that legalised it will not simply reject your resolution?


My uncle He was close but he didn't give in, he like my whole family exept my not sogreat uncle, thought it would be wronge.



[loophole in the resolution]
Rich man: *sneeze*
Greedy heir: Oh no he is suffering, do you wish to die?
Rich man: No
Greedy heir: Doctors, he can't make the choice to die i am closes to him so i will decied for him, kill him.
Greedy heir in priveret: MUHAHAHAHAHAHA MONEY!!! :twisted: :lol: :twisted:

the repeal would have my support

As most of the people is still discussing the acceptability or not of Euthanasia I feel in the obligation of explaining: The biigest argument right now is not whether euthanasia is correct or not, but what euthanasia IS. The current proposal asks for close relatives to be able to "pull the plug", this is the problem for most of the democratic and liberal nations who oppose this proposal.

My nation allows euthanasia (OOC: I approved it in the issue) but only as long as it is the same as suicide. We cannot allow other people to make the choice.

Please vote against this proposal; after all this "noise" we'll surely be able to pass a NEW revised resolution to legalize euthanasia in the correct terms.

If the terms were the correct ones this resolution would have passed easily and not in such a close end, last time I checked it was 10700 to 9900!!!

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=2627163#2627163

this is a place to discuse the propolsol.