NationStates Jolt Archive

Unbelievable... the difference was less than 700 votes. My nation is currently checking the opportunities as everyone who voted against it must:

1- A counter-proposal that should eliminate the "anyone-can-kill-you" element.

2- Resigning and stop fighting against a lot of people who doesn't even read the proposals before voting.

3- Doing nothing and stop discussing this (OOC: yeah right... hehehe)

The main problem (if we really think about it, anyway...) for those of us who oppose euthanasia isn't this law's enforcement in our own nations. While the resolution is supposed to make it law in all member nations, there are enough loopholes and legal wiggle-room that we can find ways around euthanasia actually occurring. The real problem, as I see it, is the nations who will use this as an excuse for genocide and other horrible crimes, or the individuals within nations where it is legal who will likewise abuse it.

I have created a modifier bill that should pass without being deleted for being a direct repeal, but that maintains voluntary euthanasia, whilst getting rid of obligatory legalisation of letting other people decide, and stopping evil usages of the current resolution, such as state-sponsored murder of ill dissidents. Find it on the forum here (I haven't submitted it yet):
http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=116069

Everyone over a certain age or with a life-threatening illness should be given the right to decide whether, in such a situation, they want to live on for as long as possible, or die with a little dignity left intact. This would mean a legal document would be filled out by those concerned. This would ensure that it is not a medical decision, but the patient's choice

Keywords are 'patients choice' and whatnot. The only time it can be executed without the pacients choise is if they are in a coma for 5-10 years. I don't consider that unreasonable.

I don't see how this legislation currently supports 'state-sponsored murder of ill dissidents', since it only applies to patients in a coma or otherwise unable to function.

I left just before it was passed and now I've rejoined, after it has been passed. It has therefore not affected my nation directly. :D

Everyone over a certain age or with a life-threatening illness should be given the right to decide whether, in such a situation, they want to live on for as long as possible, or die with a little dignity left intact. This would mean a legal document would be filled out by those concerned. This would ensure that it is not a medical decision, but the patient's choice

Keywords are 'patients choice' and whatnot. The only time it can be executed without the pacients choise is if they are in a coma for 5-10 years. I don't consider that unreasonable.

I don't see how this legislation currently supports 'state-sponsored murder of ill dissidents', since it only applies to patients in a coma or otherwise unable to function.

The problem is in this section:

In the case of a freak situation in which a person has no serious illness or is over a certain age, if the person cannot make the decision themselves it would be made by those closest to them on the basis of professional medical advice.

An unscrupulous government could find some definition of being unable to make the decision - there is no clarification on whether this means that they are physically unable to actually communicate their opinion e.g. in paralysis, or whether it covers people who have mental illnesses or whatever and so the government decides they can't be trusted to make their own decision. It could be decided that anyone who disagreed with government policy had to be mentally ill (under Brezhnev, the USSR locked up dissidents in mental homes), and thus couldn't make a decision. Then, all that would be necessary would be to have a government agent say that they are an old friend, present some doctored photos of them with the person, and ask that the dissident be euthanised.

Alternatively, the government could coerce family members into requesting euthanasia.

I left just before it was passed and now I've rejoined, after it has been passed. It has therefore not affected my nation directly. :D


:D , you followed my advice 8)

We are moving on.

All health care facilities have forms for all patients to fill out concerning their wishes in a variety of situations, including terminal illness and/or life support. Clinical staff are now being trained to hellp patients fill out the forms, answering their questions.
We were troubled at the idea of family members not knowing about these arrangements but decided to respect confidentiality and let the patient tell the family if desired.

It's costly, but we want to protect our people.

Soon we will have a mountainous database which any healthcare professional can access in an appropriate situation.

I left just before it was passed and now I've rejoined, after it has been passed. It has therefore not affected my nation directly. :D
Rubbish.
One cannot avoid the law with such a cheap trick. All UN resolutions in force are agreed to when a nation joins. You are either in agreement, or you are in defiance of the UN and should be expelled.

We move on, that's how politics work, sometimes you just have to accept what the majority thinks.

i say we need to move on. We cant really do anything now exept make a resolutin toe repeal the one htat just passed

I'm kinda new at this forum thing, but I had problems with this as soon as I read it. Like most people I saw all the loop holes in thiis bill. I really don't see it as somthing we can just sit on and let happen. I would be in complete support of the "Euthanasia Clarification Bill" if given the chance.

Lawdunia is 100% against euthanasia and we are very concerned at the heavy-handed position adopted by the Compliance Ministry in trying to force legislation on a sovereign state.
I ask all states who value there own integrity to bombard the Ministry with motions of disagreement at this dictatorial action.

We move on, that's how politics work, sometimes you just have to accept what the majority thinks.

Thats funny, that does not seem like a majority to us. That passed by less that 800 votes. Not a majority. In regards to what the UN passed, we have added our own amendment that still allows the procedure under the law but makes it more difficult (more doctors must agree on the prognosis) and it must be approved by the Ministry of Health. As to the religious questions, we still oppose the procedure but like Equility said above, thats how democracy works. But nations can still add more requirements as long as they obey the UN mandates.

The States of Stephenson

could we re-vote on the resolution :?:

I left just before it was passed and now I've rejoined, after it has been passed. It has therefore not affected my nation directly. :D
Rubbish.
One cannot avoid the law with such a cheap trick. All UN resolutions in force are agreed to when a nation joins. You are either in agreement, or you are in defiance of the UN and should be expelled.

That is correct, every time a nation enters the UN they accept and have laws made to comply to every approved decition that was voted before you entered. I'm so sorry for the people of Catholic Europe...

About this not being a majority choice, I agree. Most "big-time" organizations have a quorum and a proportion of votes that must be complied to approve a new meassure. For an example on our UN it would be something like: 50% of the nations must vote and the difference of FOR and AGAINST must be of 25% to be passed or rejected, if this terms aren't complied then the votation is not valid and a new one is sostained, or simply the matter is put aside until new "evidence" or "reasons" come up (a new proposal with modified terms that incline the balance to one side or the other)

Thats funny, that does not seem like a majority to us. That passed by less that 800 votes. Not a majority.

We respectfully have to take issue with this. Even if the resolution had passed by a SINGLE vote, it would have been the majority of votes.

For you to say that 779 votes is not a passing margin, it follows then that if the AGAINST votes had exceeded the FOR votes by less than 779 the resolution would not have been defeated. That leaves a grey area in the middle, encompassing more than 1500 votes where, what, the vote would have been a tie?

James Moehlman
Assistant Manager in charge of U.N. Affairs
Greenspoint

No offense intende

Hitler: Oh no Jews are suffering we must kill them all. :evil:

UN: we can not do anything who ever wrote the resoulution left to many loopholes.

Hitler: Die die die muhahahahahaha :twisted: :lol: :twisted:

Is this what you mean by genocide?

Hitler: Oh no Jews are suffering we must kill them all. :evil:
UN: we can not do anything who ever wrote the resoulution left to many loopholes.
Hitler: Die die die muhahahahahaha :twisted: :lol: :twisted:


THANK YOU. someone finally posted an apt analogy to the issue at hand. The way the euthanasia clause is, the above could very likely (and legally) happen. That's why it needs to be amended.

I know I'm new but hear me out.



Drogonsile rekons this resolution allows genocide on this rather strange sophistry. You have not seemed to have read the proposal. However that is not my main problem, I am sure that the UN is capable of distinguishing between a person in a coma and mass genocide. You seem to have the view that the UN maintain racial groups as "super individual" which means because part of the group is suffering, the whole group must die.

Also you can't have read the proposal since it says (I quote):

"This would mean a legal document would be filled out by those concerned. This would ensure that it is not a medical decision, but the patient's choice"

So for Hitler to make this desision he would need to get a signed document from every Jew in the country. And considerin 6 Million were murder, with many more in concentration camps, this would be a lot of paperwork to show the UN.

And you havn't read the part that says;

In the case of a freak situation in which a person has no serious illness or is over a certain age, if the person cannot make the decision themselves it would be made by those closest to them on the basis of professional medical advice.

Keyword NO SERIOUS ILLNESS. If Hitler had a doctor sign a form, he could very well kill whomever he wanted. (The term 'closest' is relative and could relate to physical closeness rather than family ties.)

If someone did commit genocide under this clause, as long as they covered their tracks appropratly (drs wavers etc) they could NOT be held accountable because of this legislature, which is why it needs ammending.

There is currently an ammendment clause which more clearly defines euthanasia and prohibits this from happening. I encourage everyone who truly supports euthanasia to consider supporting that clause as well since it will fix this 'loophole'.

(OOC: The creatorr must be laughing as he reads us squabbling over this, what an interesting little social society.)

Unbelievable... the difference was less than 700 votes.


That's democracy for you. The person/idea/option/whatever with the most votes wins - except in the USA of course.

Funny how you don't like it so much when you're not getting your way, isn't it?

To Hedgania:
If you would have read my second post, you would know why I said this and what I propose (even if it's changing game mechanics). A Democracy is also about protecting minorities, and in this case it wasn't even a minority.
I'm not against this because I didn't get it my way, I don't know why you would say that, I'm all for euthanasia as long as it's equal to suicide, this is the seventh time I say it and you would know it if you would have been around more.

However you (New Eriu) are also ignoring the bit about it being " the patient's" choice.

Anyway the main reason I posted something is I hate it when people mention the Nazis. Although it was used intelligently here, I always feel there are better ways to express an opinion. For example, in this case Milosovic, or some more modern dictator (okay, Saddam) could have been used, that is one from the era that the UN existed in.


NB I have to admit though, the Nazis were the one of the first countries to allow euthanasia, (Although it was reserved for the mentaly ill, a term they stretch a long way).

However you (New Eriu) are also ignoring the bit about it being " the patient's" choice.

It SHOULD be only the patients choise. However the current legislature says that a medical professional can override that. even if they are not sick. (I'm paraphrasing).

I know that in my country, steps will be taken to ensure this is not the case, however another UN member may not do so and choose to exploit the loopholes. And they could do so leagally and without retribution under the current laws.

I'm for Euthanasia in general, I'm not for this wording which has a loophole. That's why I'm supporting the ammendment movement which will 'patch' this hole.

I cannot see anything abou a medical professional being able to overide the patients wishes, whilst they are sentient, any where in the legislation (i am willing to recant that if you can givew me a quote supporting your claim). Same for the part part you say "even if they are not sick." Again i will recant if given evidence.

I cannot see anything abou a medical professional being able to overide the patients wishes, whilst they are sentient, any where in the legislation (i am willing to recant that if you can givew me a quote supporting your claim). Same for the part part you say "even if they are not sick." Again i will recant if given evidence.

I quoted it already but I will quote it again.

In the case of a freak situation in which a person has no serious illness or is over a certain age, if the person cannot make the decision themselves it would be made by those closest to them on the basis of professional medical advice.

Being 'unable to make that decision' can be loosely interpreted, as can 'closest to them'.

All I'm saying is that I'd really like to see the ammendment go through which clarifies the issue.

Yes I see what you see what you mean (so i will recant, I missed that part). However i think you have missed something. That quotation could also be used by eugenicists and dictatorial regimes to 'mercifully' kill the mentally ill, see the NB on my first post. Also I agree with a clarification ammendment.



I was wrong you, missed nothing. But in my fragile state I didn't realise it.

I know I'm new but hear me out.



Drogonsile rekons this resolution allows genocide on this rather strange sophistry. You have not seemed to have read the proposal. However that is not my main problem, I am sure that the UN is capable of distinguishing between a person in a coma and mass genocide. You seem to have the view that the UN maintain racial groups as "super individual" which means because part of the group is suffering, the whole group must die.

Also you can't have read the proposal since it says (I quote):

"This would mean a legal document would be filled out by those concerned. This would ensure that it is not a medical decision, but the patient's choice"

So for Hitler to make this desision he would need to get a signed document from every Jew in the country. And considerin 6 Million were murder, with many more in concentration camps, this would be a lot of paperwork to show the UN.


First it is Drangonsile
second i've heard of something called forgry. :wink:
Thirdly it says the closes person can make the decision and if hitler says he is closes, they can't argue, they would be dead :cry:

Also the fact that the legislature says they it must be done in a painless manner. There is no painless way to kill someone. Even cryogenic poisons hurt. Suffocation hurts.

So, which euthanasia is technically legal, it is logically impossible in the current legislature. Which is why it needed ammendment from day 1.

ok folks - let's get mundane for just a moment. This is a game. Logistically the only affect any UN ammendment has on any nation may be in it's overall economy (to pay for that change, if need be). Beyond that -- try to keep some perspective here. Roll playing is fun, and I love NS, but sometime I think everyone looses perspective.

The RCO supports putting forth a resolution to modify the decrees of this recent one. It is not unprecedented, and indeed is for the best.

And moreover, it is democratic. After all, that a slim majority of votes decides a particular issue on a particular day does not mean the issue can never be dealt with again. Indeed, the truly democratic deliberative body will allow the issue to be addressed again, and again if necessary. Democracy makes any such decision provisional, and therefore leaves us, who diagree with the resolution, the ability to do something about it.

The euthanasia measure barely passed. Certainly a modification of it should have a chance at success. We encourage the delegate nations to look for a solution.

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

i think that there should be an amendment.

euthanasia is a very sensitive topic, and could be
corrupted in so many ways.

(e.g. Joe's father is in a nursing home for a terminal
illness. Joe is sick of paying for it. He talks to the
doctor about euthanasia, or goes about it on his own.)

i believe that there should be a pre-situational
euthanasia allowance form that clearly explains the
individual's wishes in the case of a terminal illness in which
they can not make the decision for themself.

i also believe there should be a fee for those who
instigate euthanasia of their own will, as their death
would leave the family to the costs of a funeral,
and the doctors with issues concerning the death in
the hospital.

euthanasia can't just be legal, it has to have clear
and definite rules.

"Also the fact that the legislature says they it must be done in a painless manner. There is no painless way to kill someone. Even cryogenic poisons hurt. Suffocation hurts."

it's not about a painless death, it's really about
death with dignity.

the word euthanasia is of a greek word meaning
good death.

it's not meant to be painless, but it's meant
to be painless in relation to the condition they
are currently in.

RE:Myopia's propsal idea. You want to legalise suicide? is 'liberalism' more important than life to ye people? oh, he's mentally ill and wants to kill himself, oh, thatse his choice, good for him. OR you could apprehend him for attempted murder( DUH!!!) and seek professional medical and psychiatric assistance for his benefit. better to save a life than give someone a shot at wasting it. this includes euthanasia. as for terminal illness, there's no excuse. if you have a life, you live it not throw it away, no matter if it may seem 'undignified' to live on. oh how this liberal post modern attitude makes me sick and spits in the face of oppressed people everywhere.
I intend on putting forward a proposal to directly repeal the bill if possible.

the Duchy of Vermatuse is 100% against euthanasia, but let us see that as a personal/cultural/moral matter for now. there seems to be two main issues at hand: 1. the careless wording of the original euthanasia bill, and
2. the objections of nations to having such a bill shoved down their
throats, especially on such a sensitive issue, with the votes coming
so close.

However you see it, this present bill needs to be revoked in the interest of preserving civil rights and the rights of a nation to chose its own course.

I propose we go further than ammendment and drop the bill in favour of one which will state that the UN will not pass bills on snesitive issues such as abortion, divorce, suicide, euthanasia, as to force member nations to accept such bills wether or not they agree, and regardless of their stance would be undemocratic and would cause division not unity, which is, as far as i know, the first purpose of the UN, can i hear an amen?

RE:Myopia's propsal idea. You want to legalise suicide? is 'liberalism' more important than life to ye people? oh, he's mentally ill and wants to kill himself, oh, thatse his choice, good for him. OR you could apprehend him for attempted murder( DUH!!!) and seek professional medical and psychiatric assistance for his benefit. better to save a life than give someone a shot at wasting it. this includes euthanasia. as for terminal illness, there's no excuse. if you have a life, you live it not throw it away, no matter if it may seem 'undignified' to live on. oh how this liberal post modern attitude makes me sick and spits in the face of oppressed people everywhere.
I intend on putting forward a proposal to directly repeal the bill if possible.

the Duchy of Vermatuse is 100% against euthanasia, but let us see that as a personal/cultural/moral matter for now. there seems to be two main issues at hand: 1. the careless wording of the original euthanasia bill, and
2. the objections of nations to having such a bill shoved down their
throats, especially on such a sensitive issue, with the votes coming
so close.

However you see it, this present bill needs to be revoked in the interest of preserving civil rights and the rights of a nation to chose its own course.

I propose we go further than ammendment and drop the bill in favour of one which will state that the UN will not pass bills on snesitive issues such as abortion, divorce, suicide, euthanasia, as to force member nations to accept such bills wether or not they agree, and regardless of their stance would be undemocratic and would cause division not unity, which is, as far as i know, the first purpose of the UN, can i hear an amen?

OR you could apprehend him for attempted murder( DUH!!!) and seek professional medical and psychiatric assistance for his benefit. better to save a life than give someone a shot at wasting it.
While new Eriu is for the proposal agreement, we are also concerned about the suicide clause. Please ensure that otherwise healthy active people (such as teenagers) are prohibited from killing themselves.

ok folks - let's get mundane for just a moment. This is a game. Logistically the only affect any UN ammendment has on any nation may be in it's overall economy (to pay for that change, if need be). Beyond that -- try to keep some perspective here. Roll playing is fun, and I love NS, but sometime I think everyone looses perspective.

OOC
For me (and, I can tell from posts, many others here) it is a mental challenge to think of all the ways that a given law COULD impact a nation before deciding wether it is practical or not.
/OOC

RE:Myopia's propsal idea. You want to legalise suicide? is 'liberalism' more important than life to ye people? oh, he's mentally ill and wants to kill himself, oh, thatse his choice, good for him. OR you could apprehend him for attempted murder( DUH!!!) and seek professional medical and psychiatric assistance for his benefit. better to save a life than give someone a shot at wasting it. this includes euthanasia. as for terminal illness, there's no excuse. if you have a life, you live it not throw it away, no matter if it may seem 'undignified' to live on. oh how this liberal post modern attitude makes me sick and spits in the face of oppressed people everywhere.
I intend on putting forward a proposal to directly repeal the bill if possible.

the Duchy of Vermatuse is 100% against euthanasia, but let us see that as a personal/cultural/moral matter for now. there seems to be two main issues at hand: 1. the careless wording of the original euthanasia bill, and
2. the objections of nations to having such a bill shoved down their
throats, especially on such a sensitive issue, with the votes coming
so close.

However you see it, this present bill needs to be revoked in the interest of preserving civil rights and the rights of a nation to chose its own course.

I propose we go further than ammendment and drop the bill in favour of one which will state that the UN will not pass bills on snesitive issues such as abortion, divorce, suicide, euthanasia, as to force member nations to accept such bills wether or not they agree, and regardless of their stance would be undemocratic and would cause division not unity, which is, as far as i know, the first purpose of the UN, can i hear an amen?

Legalisation is not the same as endorsement. We should treat potential suicidees not as criminals, but as people with psychiatric problems - in Real Life (an addictive online NS simulator many _Myopians_ play :wink: ), we don't make it a criminal offence to have a mental illness, but the government retains the right to force certain people with mental illnesses into care for the safety of themselves and others (my proposal allows nations to deal with this as they see fit, as long as the act is not criminalised).

In the end, it's the individual's body to destroy, his life to end, and his potential to throw away.

Please ensure that otherwise healthy active people (such as teenagers) are prohibited from killing themselves.

A - how exactly do you prevent or deter somebody from killing themself?
B - See my mantra above

dosen't it say something about suffering, but never says it has to be illness.

Sorry I use hitler because everyone knows he was evil and he is the reason the made the word genocide (They had no word befor him) also it seems he would do this.

No offense is intended.

Hitler to secret police: Make life mesurable for all Jews, so they are suffering.
Random Jew:I'm suffering.
Hitler:all Jews are suffering I will put The out of their mesury. *Gun Fire*

That's democracy for you. The person/idea/option/whatever with the most votes wins - except in the USA of course.

Democracy is government of and by the people. The UN is about as far from that as one can get. Except for regional delegates, each nation recieves a single vote, regardless of the size of its population. Furthermore, there is no requirement whatsoever that the person casting a vote represents the will of his or her population. The votes of dictators (such as my benevolent self) count just as much as the votes of democratically elected leaders.