NationStates Jolt Archive

This so called Euthanasia Resolution (which it isn't) contradicts itself.
First it says a person has the right to make the decision themselves
and later talks about those over a certain age who can't make
the decision for themselves. Which is it?
The irony of 'read it carefully' underscores a resolution which
clearly wasn't even *Written* carefully and those who vote yes
ignore this fact.

It doesn't matter, it will be passed. We must now concentrate on creating a proposal that nulifies this resolution.

This is very important. In our opinion, this resolution actually only allows what is called "passive voluntary euthanasia" - that is, the patient's refusal to artificially extend life. This is because of the words "such a situation" in the third paragraph, which can only refer to the situation in the rather emotive first paragraph. Under our nation's Supreme Court's interpretation, this will only allow "euthanasia" in situations similar to turning off a life-support machine - and even then, only with the patient's prior consent. This resolution's bark is worse than its bite - even for predominantly Christian nations such as ourselves. Athine has hit the nail on the head.

~Thrace-Tailteann (http://members.fortunecity.com/thracetailteann/index.html)

Keep in mind, however, that the resolution contains a loop-hole. If our medical associations, private professional organizations, refuse to accept euthanasia, and these associations are necessary for licensing, then this resolution can do nothing to stop them. At most, a doctor could euthanize one person, and would lose their medical license through the private organization.

While we should work to overturn this resolution, we can circumvent it at home until that time.

With Respect,
Minister of Foreign Affairs Voegelin, Royal Commonwealth of Oakeshottland.

Keep in mind, however, that the resolution contains a loop-hole.
Respectfully, Minister, the loophole works both ways.

"Professional medical advice" may also be interpreted as meaning the Chief Medical Officer at a nation's concentration camps, and " those closest to them" can easily mean the Warden at any given nation's prison facilities. This proposal enhances the legality of state-sanctioned murder and genocide, which your nation (along with many others) clearly abhors.

The simple fact that good and worthy nations such as Oakeshottland are openly advising fellow UN members on how to avoid the implications of this ill-considered proposal is proof of what an awful bill it is. We need to be more vigilant in approving proposals, more diligent in campaigning against such proposals, and more attentive to the implications of even the best ideas.

This has been a learning experience for UN members of all beliefs. What will we do with the lesson?

M. J. Donovan, CEO, Frisbeeteria.

Respectfully, Minister, the loophole works both ways.

I think that proves the point a lot of us have been trying to make that the resolution is flawed and should not be passed. The loophole will allow any nation to continue on as they would have done anyway. It imposes upon national sovereignty and doesn't actually DO anything.

To CEO M. J. Donovan of Frisbeeteria, Greetings:

We agree with you completely, and you speak wisely. Unfortunately, the lesson the RCO has learned too often from these asinine and dangerous resolutions is how to find ways around their enforcement. The UN has become a joke in many regards, and unfortunately far too many states are either willing to force their own ideologies upon others, or simply uncaring enough to read what they vote for.

Campaigns are a good idea, but difficult at best. The only campaigns I have generally seen work are those against pleasant-sounding resolutions that are inherently suicidal (some time back there was a motion that effectively would have starved all UN nations to death....a campaign barely stopped it).

I have heard a suggestion for a Supreme Court, to look over these measures. I think, indeed, that this may be sound. But, I would argue more for a "Council of Elders" method. Let us say, 500 nations are selected for this role. Their purpose is to look over passed resolutions to see if they are sound. If not, they veto them. That is this council's only power. This 500 would not be elected (as voting is what's causing the problem here), but would be made up of the oldest continuous members of the UN. These mature states would more likely understand what a good resolution should be, even if they disagree wit its politics. THis may serve as a check to the unthinking nature of the UN today.

But it is only a thought. Any suggestions from your nation would be highly welcome. Hopefully together we can find some solutions to this mess.

With Repect,
Minister of Foreign Affairs Voegelin, Royal Commonwealth of Oakeshottland.

Any suggestions from your nation would be highly welcome.
The Allied States of Frisbeeteria have made a suggestion which is even now under consideration. Those who manage the arcane substructure of the United Nations are even now studying the plausibility of enacting it. We encourage all UN members to add their suggestions to the topic:

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=113087

To summarize, we propose a less exclusive "Council of Elders" which already exists. We currently have 2,328 Regional Delegates (UNRDs), each of whom represents a Region. Those Delegates already have the power to Approve proposals. The Frisbeeterian Proposal suggests adding the power of Rejection by Delegates.

As it currently stands, only passive methods of objection are available to UNRDs. This proposal would permit active rejection to their arsenal of diplomatic tactics. If a proposal offends a substantial number of us, we would exercise our votes to Table or Reject the proposed bill, and it would quietly wither away without ever being presented to the UN membership at large.

Since it is the At Large vote that passed the Euthanasia proposal despite vehement objection here in the Forums, this would give UNRDs the opportunity to nip it in the bud, as it were. Awful proposals would never reach the floor.

Delegates, only a few of us have expressed our opinions on how such a system would be structured. Please, we implore you, click the link above and make your views be known. Those who understand the shrouded mysteries of the UN voting systems (sometimes known as SalusaSecondus) await only our input before enacting our desires. Let them know your will!

M.J. Donovan, CEO, Frisbeeteria.