Kamsaki
15-01-2004, 20:42
A decision among the Kamsaki high Courts this morning has overturned any possibility of this resolution coming into effect within its borders. Since this resolution would violate the freedom of choice of the individual that the state features highly, it is essentially anulled, and recent laws officially declaring that no further governmental action can repeal the illegality of undesired death simply sets that in stone.
In order to maintain the honour of the United Nations, we have agreed to implement a system whereby if a patient has been diagnosed with a terminal illness that will end his or her life within the following fortnight, they will be offered the provisions to end it themselves by medical authorities. We do this to at least give the organisation some form of authority themselves.
However, we will not allow at any point an external, unliscenced individual to perform the job for them, nor will we provide Euthanasia based on Age. Furthermore, what Euthanasia exists will be closely regulated by a Medical Standards Body to ensure it is not misused.
This is what will take effect in Kamsaki once the resolution is passed. We invite any similarly minded nations to take similar actions, and accept claims that what we are doing is violating United Nations charters. We do not care. This resolution itself is in clear violation of Article 55; "the United Nations shall promote higher standards of living", which this by very definition does not, thus leaving ourselves simply executing article 56; "All Members pledge themselves to take joint and separate action in co-operation with the Organization for the achievement of the purposes set forth in Article 55."
As is also noted in the charter, In places where the charter is in conflict with another international agreement, the charter prevails. Therefore, we choose to uphold the current United Nations charter over this resolution.
(( I invite any nation to accuse me of poor roleplaying. We are breaking no rules through this action; it's entirely justified within the UN charter. Kamsaki will also remain within the United Nations; we still believe there is yet some hope for the organisation. ))
In order to maintain the honour of the United Nations, we have agreed to implement a system whereby if a patient has been diagnosed with a terminal illness that will end his or her life within the following fortnight, they will be offered the provisions to end it themselves by medical authorities. We do this to at least give the organisation some form of authority themselves.
However, we will not allow at any point an external, unliscenced individual to perform the job for them, nor will we provide Euthanasia based on Age. Furthermore, what Euthanasia exists will be closely regulated by a Medical Standards Body to ensure it is not misused.
This is what will take effect in Kamsaki once the resolution is passed. We invite any similarly minded nations to take similar actions, and accept claims that what we are doing is violating United Nations charters. We do not care. This resolution itself is in clear violation of Article 55; "the United Nations shall promote higher standards of living", which this by very definition does not, thus leaving ourselves simply executing article 56; "All Members pledge themselves to take joint and separate action in co-operation with the Organization for the achievement of the purposes set forth in Article 55."
As is also noted in the charter, In places where the charter is in conflict with another international agreement, the charter prevails. Therefore, we choose to uphold the current United Nations charter over this resolution.
(( I invite any nation to accuse me of poor roleplaying. We are breaking no rules through this action; it's entirely justified within the UN charter. Kamsaki will also remain within the United Nations; we still believe there is yet some hope for the organisation. ))