NationStates Jolt Archive

It is before the UN that we should take measures to protect the mentally ill and see to it that they are not harmed.
I say nonsense!!!!!!
The botched and bungled shall not stand in the way of our glory!

Thank you and have a nice day.

Emperor Athaell

It is before the UN that we should take measures to protect the mentally ill and see to it that they are not harmed.
I say nonsense!!!!!!
The botched and bungled shall not stand in the way of our glory!

Thank you and have a nice day.

Emperor Athaell

Well, if you feel so strongly about it, do put up a relevant proposal and see what the world will say bout it. The Opressed People of Lumpy Nuts, for one, do not think that the botched and bungled should be pushed to one side. They are quite useful in our laboratories...

Edit - My bad. Did not know that the resolution went on-line so quickly after the Euthanasia Vote... will read it now

they are living human beings with feelings, and will be delt with justly. this is a simple resolution, just vote FOR it, someday GOD FORBID u may be in that situation, and i'm sure u wouldn't want to be treated like trash, and the proposal doesn't say anywhere that they will come in anyone's way of success, just treat them fairly, so i appeal to you to change your vote in the UN to FOR the res.

Well, we could, or we could NOT
Anyway, it will tatally nullify the advantages of the euthanasia vote if i cant dissect them alive...

Anyway, it will tatally nullify the advantages of the euthanasia vote if i cant dissect them alive...

Agreed. However, since Gleeb opposes your system and principles of government, this is not a matter that gives us unease.

If only to ensure a safety against euthanasia-flavored murder, we need this and other like measures.

It is before the UN that we should take measures to protect the mentally ill and see to it that they are not harmed.
I say nonsense!!!!!!
The botched and bungled shall not stand in the way of our glory!

Thank you and have a nice day.

Emperor Athaell

That is a terrible attitude to have. It is our duty, as government, to protect all of our citizens, whether they be mentally handicapped or not.

This proposal is nothing but eminent good sense. The Human Rights issue alone should swing most nations to a landslide "Yes" vote. More importantly, the extra funding will keep the mentally ill off the streets, and in places where they can be well cared for. A proposal that does nothing but benefit all involved.

It is cheaper to provide group housing for the mentally ill than to pay the social costs of abandoning them, which include welfare since they cannot support themselves, counseling, oftentimes prison since the paranoid and antisocial ones tend toward criminal insanity (prison capacity for the criminally insane is at a premium as a result), law enforcement costs, lost propoerty costs (from street crime), lost tourism (the homeless are an eyesore, and most homeless are the abandoned mentally ill) and public health care costs.

A prison has a large staff of well-paid professional, and it is often forgotten that these people work three shifts around the clock.

Group homes have a resident counselor and an aide (for a smaller population but it is still a savings overall). Overnight, there's just a counselor. sad to say, these professionals are not at all well paid.

why would we vote on this when there are no mentally ill in the game? :?: :?: :?:

why would we vote on this when there are no mentally ill in the game? :?: :?: :?:

Speak for yourself! :P

Hey I just took the personality dysfunction test on General, and I'm pretty sick if I do say so!

Catholic Europe spouted:Athaell wrote:
It is before the UN that we should take measures to protect the mentally ill and see to it that they are not harmed.
I say nonsense!!!!!!
The botched and bungled shall not stand in the way of our glory!

Thank you and have a nice day.

Emperor Athaell


That is a terrible attitude to have. It is our duty, as government, to protect all of our citizens, whether they be mentally handicapped or not.
Why does Catholic Europe, a rogue nation whose attempts to avoid the rule of law are well known, feel it has any legitimate voice to add to this or any other topic?

I voted for. I think this is much better than putting them down like sick dogs.

I think that we should ask ourselves if homosexuality is a mental disease. If so all of such a persuasion must be registered. Violent types should be sterilised to reduce the risk of rape.

This proposal would include a ban on physical abuse, forcing mentally-ill citizens to perform inhumane tasks, or forcing mentally-ill citizens to live and/or work in inhumane conditions.


Ok, so it IS allowed to phisically abuse the "normal" people? Or let "normal" people live and work in inhumane conditions?

This proposal just looks like it's supportive and all, but doesn't everyone in the UN already have these rights?
By accepting this proposal, you`re actually saying that the mentally ill are NOT to be considered like any other citizen, but they should have their own "save the freak" protection law.

I think that we should ask ourselves if homosexuality is a mental disease.

To suggest or believe that you would not be adhering to the Gay Rights act, which has been passed on May 3, 2003.

Regardless of how the current debate turns out, Gay Rights has already been passed by the UN.

Ok, so it IS allowed to phisically abuse the "normal" people? Or let "normal" people live and work in inhumane conditions?

While this is true, our Druidic Theocracy is still finding reprocussions of the recently passed Euthanasia legislature. The current issue, if passed, could serve to reduce and restrict some of the loophole oversites that that legislature contained, providing that new legislature outweighs older legislature (which by New Eriu's interpretation of contradicting laws, it does).

(OOC: I'm not a delegate yet, but ours is a new region, I should be delegate tomorrow or whenever it updates)

Fair Treatment of Mentally-Ill
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights Strength: Strong Proposed by: Faybian
Description: Humane Treatment of the Mentally-Ill

Resolved, all countries that are members of UN be required to treat citizens who are mentally-ill humanely.

A mental illness is defined as a psychiatric disorder that results in a disruption in a person's thinking, feeling, moods, and ability to relate to others.

This proposal would include a ban on physical abuse, forcing mentally-ill citizens to perform inhumane tasks, or forcing mentally-ill citizens to live and/or work in inhumane conditions.

Basic services should be offered to all citizens who are mentally-ill.

Votes For: 936

Votes Against: 134

[Delegate Votes]

Voting Ends: Wed Jan 21 2004



Just to tell you what its about i voted yes

vote against it is because they are human beangs just like everyone els that they should get no special treatment.

one cant take emotions into government just because you feal sorry for these people dont force others to also

vote against

Thank you for reposting that, even though it is quite easy to view it in the UN page which is accessible to all nations.

After looking over the proposal again, it reminded me that it does not specifically address nor ammend the euthanasia issue.

Hence, if our regional politics nominates New Eriu as delegate for Evermore, then I will be voting against this issue in hopes that it will be ammended and re proposed at a later time, as the benefits of this legislature do not seem to outway the monatary costs associated with 'basic services will be offered to all mentally ill'.

the current definition of mentally ill is actually quite vague, and applies to most humans in some countries. If this legislature were passed, it would mean that many of the mentally ill who ARE capable of working, would no longer be required to work since they could live off of the 'basic services', which would mean a significant reduction in the overall workforce.

I concur and vote against. (Pending on the support of my region)

vote against it is because they are human beangs just like everyone els that they should get no special treatment.

one cant take emotions into government just because you feal sorry for these people dont force others to also

vote against

Quite right. The proposal states

This proposal would include a ban on physical abuse, forcing mentally-ill citizens to perform inhumane tasks, or forcing mentally-ill citizens to live and/or work in inhumane conditions.

Surely all people should have that right, or is it alright to physically abuse non-mentally-ill people, make them perform inhumane tasks (which are..?) and/or work in inhumane conditions?

This proposal is just needless, unless a previous proposal stating human rights had a clause barring it from applying to the mentally-ill, which i don't think is the case.

We're voting against.

Yours faithfully,

Belmonto Sprout, Deacon of Stating The Obvious

I have voted for the current resolution, simply because it enforces basic human rights and to vote against it would be to directly go against my own convictions.

However, I do wonder if this proposal isn't rendered obsolete by the Human Rights Act 1998, already in place, which guarantees all the things guaranteed by the new resolution? Doesn't the current resolution appear to be a bit surplus to requirements?

Yours, in peace,

Al Presidente of The People's Republic of Tynedwaith

vote against it is because they are human beangs just like everyone els that they should get no special treatment.

one cant take emotions into government just because you feal sorry for these people dont force others to also

vote against

Quite right. The proposal states

This proposal would include a ban on physical abuse, forcing mentally-ill citizens to perform inhumane tasks, or forcing mentally-ill citizens to live and/or work in inhumane conditions.

Surely all people should have that right, or is it alright to physically abuse non-mentally-ill people, make them perform inhumane tasks (which are..?) and/or work in inhumane conditions?

This proposal is just needless, unless a previous proposal stating human rights had a clause barring it from applying to the mentally-ill, which i don't think is the case.

We're voting against.

Yours faithfully,

Belmonto Sprout, Deacon of Stating The Obvious
Just because it stops inhumane treatment of the mentally ill does not mean that it advocates inhumane treatment of others. You can infer from the text that it is referring to inhumane treatment that is a direct result of discrimination of the mentally ill, and even so, you can always propose another resolution that stops all inhumane treatment of people.

The definition is too broad. People will suddenly use this as another crutch to live a modest lifestyle at someone else's expense.

Refine the scope and I would agree, provided it's restricted to those who are either obviously mentally ill or are diagnosed by certified physicians to have a form of severe illness. Moderate of slight illness can be treated with the typical medication and these people can continue to benefit society.

I do wonder if this proposal isn't rendered obsolete by the Human Rights Act 1998, already in place, which guarantees all the things guaranteed by the new resolution?

New Eriu concurs, and that's part of the reason we voted against, as the current proposal would only cause unneccasary beurocracy for the already convolouted system in New Eriu and also will require more government spending in an area already partially covered by our parlimacy.

PLEASE NOTE that by voting against does NOT mean that the reverse applies. If this bill does not pass that dosn't remove the rights of the mentally-ill, it would merely be left up to the nations themselves or previous UN legislation.

and even so, you can always propose another resolution that stops all inhumane treatment of people.

The human rights act already has been resolved to that effect.

The definition is too broad. People will suddenly use this as another crutch to live a modest lifestyle at someone else's expense.

The Druidic Theocracy concurs wholeheartedly, and that is our primary reason for rejection.

This is proabbly the first UN resolution that i have wanted to vote for since I've joined the UN. But what exacly does this resolution mean by "humane"? But there is also a negative side to this resolution, the mental institutes will be over crowded for it has been shown that patients get better at a slower pace if there is no physical treatment used. This will also take a big bite out of the governments capital and taxes will incerease. But over all this resolution should pass if the word "humane" be defined

I would take the definition of humane to include everything resolved in the Universal Bill of Rights.

Refine the scope and I would agree, provided it's restricted to those who are either obviously mentally ill or are diagnosed by certified physicians to have a form of severe illness. Moderate of slight illness can be treated with the typical medication and these people can continue to benefit society.

Agreed. This is my objection: Many people will no doubt take advantage of these benefits if there isn't a more exact description of what it means to be mentally ill in the context of their ability to function in society. If a lot of people take advantage of this resolution (if passed), it's going to reflect in taxes. If these people are not going to be made to work and treated to a healthy lifestyle, who is going to pay for this? The government, but ultimately the people. Sorry, I don't want my nation to have to pay for someone who considers laziness to be a mental illness. I'm against until a better-defined resolution is made.

My God, the current proposal is so ... basic. Everything, we already have, unless you happen to be a psychotic dictatorship. Don't torture the mentally ill...well...right now this seems like a no-brainer. Any reasons not to vote for it?

My God, the current proposal is so ... basic. Everything, we already have, unless you happen to be a psychotic dictatorship. Don't torture the mentally ill...well...right now this seems like a no-brainer. Any reasons not to vote for it?

Did you read everything in this thread?

Yes there is a reason for it, as it is worded right now. as it stands now people could basically 'live off the government' and do no work for having a minor mental illness (such as seasonal depression, for example, where you get deperssed during the winter months due to a lack of Vitamin D.).

This is where democracy fails is when people vote for things they consider 'basic' without looking into the overall implications and take the time to discuss.

If this measure is NOT passed it dosn't mean that everyone will have to torture the mentally ill, it simply means that it will be up to each country to enforce their own policy.

(EDIT: *sigh* double post.. move along*)

Any reasons not to vote for it?

It interferes with natural selection? :P

But really, a good understanding of human nature and economics would make you click "against".

There is nothing wrong for the idea, but for a nation to be mandated into accepted UN laws that in this case are vague if well intentioned is absurd. More clarification is needed in this resolution brfore the assembly should vote for, or against it.

More clarification is needed in this resolution brfore the assembly should vote for, or against it.

If you need more clarification you need to vote against, otherwise the bill WILL pass in it's unclarified state (see what happened with the Euthanasia vote, which is poorly written and has loopholes to advocate murder of otherwise capable people)

voting against will cause the measure to fail, but does not mean that it could not be clarified and re-submitted later.

(EDIT: double post.. move along. I'll get the hang of this eventually I swear!)

Thank you for reposting that, even though it is quite easy to view it in the UN page which is accessible to all nations.


Just saving some time and i still support it and it will pass human rights resolutions always do. :)

Just saving some time and i still support it and it will pass human rights resolutions always do. :)

Though that does not always make them right or improvements to life. Often the masses gleefully follow something, ignorant of what the true burdens are until much later. This is one such example.

my mother teaches criminal psycology not to mention i've grown up with everyone, including myself, in my family having some sort of metal illness so it is somethign i sympathise with. typically, the dont get in the way of glory, but rather enhance it. there is, afterall, a very very fine line between genious and insanity.
then again, it is immpossible to knwo who is mentall ill and who isn't. i read an article about this that had me rather convinced that is is almost immpossible to tell. . .so i dont know. its a sticky subject.

then again, it is immpossible to knwo who is mentall ill and who isn't. i read an article about this that had me rather convinced that is is almost immpossible to tell. . .so i dont know. its a sticky subject.

this is exactly the problem. A good con artist (or even a mediohre one) could get a dcoctor to sign a waver saying that that has clinical depression and then that patient would be set for life.

If this resoloution passes The Druidic Theology is going to have to put a limit on what it considers 'basic services' since it was not defined in the legislature. we don't want to have to do that but otherwise we'd be run into the ground.

(OOC: For what it's worth, I am mentally-ill, I suffer from depression and schizoid/schizotypal/avoidant tendancies. Someone like me could have a very nice lifestyle under this law at the expense of taxpayers, but nothing about my condition makes it impossible for me to work as long as I feel comfortable with my co-workers. Which is why I'm voting AGAINST.)

(OOC - for what it's worth, I'm overweight. Should I now go forth and claim to be handicapped? I think the obvious problems with this system HEAVILY outweigh the good that MIGHT be done.)

(OOC - for what it's worth, I'm overweight. Should I now go forth and claim to be handicapped? I think the obvious problems with this system HEAVILY outweigh the good that MIGHT be done.)

(OOC) ::Notes that what is written could be misconstrued if you didn't read the whole thing and amends it in an edit:: That's my point, speaking as a mentally-ill person there's problems with it that are easily abused. I'm voting against. If this resoloution passes, EASILY half of our citizens would be allowed leave the working force on full benefits, assuming 'basic services' covers food, housing, clothing, water. Not too shabby for someone who's 'merely' depressed.

This is why I'm voting against both IC and OOC.

If I didn't like politics and debating so much I WOULD resign from the UN because I disagree with the last policy as written and the current policy as written.(/OOC)

I concur.

I think who ever made this topic is a real insensitive bastard,

A Royal F'ck U to YOU

(OOC)That would be Emperor Athaell. What a nice thing to give him - a royal screwing. Wow, what a great UN member!

Sorry, couldn't resist.

(IC) - Ahem... I daresay, "next"?

I think who ever made this topic is a real insensitive bastard,

*sigh* did you even bother to read the reasons? There are very good reasons for voting no to this.

My god, if these were real nations, every nation in the UN would be going bankrupt right around now, losing all of it's workforce either to 'euthanasia' or government benefits packages, and otherwise creating a big mess.

The following is why I am voting against this resolution:

1) I have ADD.
2) People with ADD have trouble doing one thing for a long time.
3) Conversations may take a long time.
4) Conversation is a form of relating to others.
Therefore, I have a disorder which impairs my ability to relate to others.
5) According to the resolution, an impediment to one's ability to relate to others constitutes a mental illness.
6) According to me, it is inhumane to force a person to go to work in order to get money. This is not contradicted by the resolution, as "inhumane" is not defined.
Therefore, I should receive government handouts because I have ADD.
I can also declare anything I want "inhumane," and get it for free because I have ADD.

Also, whether you see it or not, the resolution implies that people who are mentally fit need not be treated humanely.
Yuck.

Also, whether you see it or not, the resolution implies that people who are mentally fit need not be treated humanely.
Yuck.

Not entirely true because it must be taken in light of recent proposals. we have a Human Rights act which covers basic rights of all humans.

However this proposal grants MORE rights to those with a 'mental illness'.

Just so everyone knows I do like to argue both sides of the issue to fully understand it That is the Druidic Way.

There are hidden rammifications to this issue that are too problematic, however I am not against the general premise. I am voting against so that the issue may be taken down and revised and resubmitted.

We oppose the involuntary commitment of any person to or involuntary treatment in a mental institution.

We strongly condemn Involuntary Outpatient Commitment (IOC), where the patient is ordered to accept treatment, or else be committed to a mental institution and forcibly treated.

We oppose government pressure requiring parents to obtain counseling or psychiatric drugs for their children. We also oppose forced treatment for the elderly, the head-injured, or those with diminished capacity.

Medication must be voluntary. We are against the invasion of people's homes and privacy by health officials or law enforcement to either require or deny drug taking.

We advocate an end to the spending of tax money for any program of psychiatric, psychological, or behavioral research or treatment.

We favor an end to the acceptance of criminal defenses based on "insanity" or "diminished capacity" which absolve the guilty of their responsibility.

The Republic of SilveryMinnow does not agree with government imposed health care. When money is stolen under the guise of charity by the government, it only benefits bureaucracy. Real aid comes from those who are given the means to offer charity. Removing this ability only subjugates the citizen, and empowers the state.

The Republic of J-Dawgg agree with everything in this resolution. With that being said we will be voting against this resolution due to it's generality and the fact "basic services" has not been defined. We will also need to limit the defenition of Basic services and mental illness if this resolution is passed. It's something we don't like to do, but the resolution gives us the wiggle room to do this. It's our hope this resolution fails and is clarified and proposed at a later date.

Sometimes, some mentally ill people are geniuses and contribute great ideas and useful inventions to society that cause great progress that would be impossible without them. Never judge an entire class of people based on a mere stereotype of mindlessness. Most mentally ill people are not mindless and many exist as normal citizens. Do not be so ignorant. bye.

Sanity is the greatest mental illness.

Some people view work as "physical abuse" and "inhumane"

Why should they have better treatment than everyone else in the nation?

We will be voting against as our country no longer as any mentally ill citizens. They've all been euthanised.

Mildred C. Pierce, Vice Chancellor

Not entirely true because it must be taken in light of recent proposals. we have a Human Rights act which covers basic rights of all humans.



The loophole in "The Universal Bill of Rights" is to say that they are sub-human and Article 10.

Article 10, "The Universal Bill of Rights does not override the existing Bill of Rights of United Nations members," is self limiting. If a pre-existing "Bill of Rights" existed, (ie. your nation is older than the resolution) then it does not apply.

(Besides the "Universal Bill of Rights" violates game mechanics.)

OK, well, sorry to be a pessimist to all you who oppose, but it's pretty obvious that this resolution will pass. There is nothing that immediately jumps out as wrong, and unfortunately many people do not take time to come here to read and consider. Despite this, I will tell you that I intend to vote against this resolution, as I believe it should be amended/improved and then resubmitted. It needs to be stricter and more clearly define its terms, or we will end up with something like entire nations on welfare, and economies will be ruined.

Personally, I think the UN Forum should be used as something like a filter for proposals...all proposals should first be posted as boards (with polls) to allow people to comment, advise, point out loopholes, etc. before a proposal is submitted. Anyone else agree?

Personally, I think the UN Forum should be used as something like a filter for proposals...all proposals should first be posted as boards (with polls) to allow people to comment, advise, point out loopholes, etc. before a proposal is submitted. Anyone else agree?

We second that. The Nation of New Eriu has independantly resolved to to that for any proposals that we propose.

Yes, Hoydonia agrees with Crystal Isle and New Eriu in having some kind of brief filtering process in which the U.N. proposal can be tailored and perhaps some oversights can be addressed.

I feel the time frame for this pre-resolution debate should be twenty-four hours. Anyone else agree?

I feel the time frame for this pre-resolution debate should be twenty-four hours. Anyone else agree?

I would suggest fourty-eight. Or even the median... thirty-six

(OOC this will never be passed officially, but hopefuly it will be seen as a guideline to clarify proposals to prevent loopholes. I'd hope that most people wind up following such a guideline, even if it's not 'coded in'.)

I would suggest fourty-eight. Or even the median... thirty-six [/quote]

Sure, I can see where thirty-six hours would be sufficient for this kind of debate and as you say this proposal may never be implemented, however I can't imagine just reading a resolution and just voting on it anyway.

I guess for the conscionable members this proposal isn't needed anyway.

I guess for the conscionable members this proposal isn't needed anyway.

Indeed, from what I've observed and heard discussed that out of the 2000 some odd delegate members, only about 70 or so are active on the forums. Of those, some of them have to represent their nation.

(Example, one delegate member mentioned they represented 30 nations however that RD represents the majority vote for their region. From the comments that majority vote rules with their emotions rather than their heads, sometimes against the recommendation of the RD themselves.)

So as you can see, this may not happen as often as it'd probably be prudent to do so.

I am completely for the ordinance.

This concept of living in a mental institution to escape having to work is utterly abusrd. Both of my parents are psychologists, my father himself working in a state hospital. I've been to these places, and just because they get three meals a day and a cot at night does not mean that it is by any remote means comfortable, or even tolerable to some extent. As to these people who say that people with seasonal depression will check themselves into a hospital, any doctor who would suggest that as a cure for seasonal depression is a fool to say the least. The resolution clearly states that we're talking about people that are unable to function on their own, minor mental illnesses are not what the writer was talking about.

As to these people who say that people with seasonal depression will check themselves into a hospital, any doctor who would suggest that as a cure for seasonal depression is a fool to say the least. The resolution clearly states that we're talking about people that are unable to function on their own, minor mental illnesses are not what the writer was talking about.

It doesn't clearly state that at all.

a disruption in a person's thinking, feeling, moods, and ability to relate to others.

Where does it say inability to function on their own? Seasonal depression does influence moods, feeling, thinking and the ability to relate to others. While doctors would not reccomend this as a viable treatment, nonetheless the current legislation explitly says basic services should be afforded to anyone who is mentally-ill. Which means that someone who is depressed, but otherwise capable of work, who is unwilling to work, should thereby be issued food, shelter and clothing (all things I personally consider basic).

Likewise nowhere does it state hospitalization, it says "basic services". Although given that vague definition, I suppose hospitalization is one method that fits that definition. Thanks for pointing that out, if (when?) the resoloution is passed, New Eriu will be using that as our model for basic services, provided that such does not classify as 'inhumane treatment' (which definition is also vague).

AS I have said earlier in this post (and other posts) I suffer some from afflictions of the mind, however 80% of the time they do not affect my work ethic, and I know there are people with worse problems, so I do agree that we should support them, but the current legilsation sets the bar 'too low' and leaves certai nfundamental principles undefined. And this is why I will continue not to support it.

OK, well, sorry to be a pessimist to all you who oppose, but it's pretty obvious that this resolution will pass. There is nothing that immediately jumps out as wrong, and unfortunately many people do not take time to come here to read and consider. Despite this, I will tell you that I intend to vote against this resolution, as I believe it should be amended/improved and then resubmitted. It needs to be stricter and more clearly define its terms, or we will end up with something like entire nations on welfare, and economies will be ruined.

Personally, I think the UN Forum should be used as something like a filter for proposals...all proposals should first be posted as boards (with polls) to allow people to comment, advise, point out loopholes, etc. before a proposal is submitted. Anyone else agree?

This makes sense! Currently the deliberative body at the nationstates U.N. defies convention with a vote first then debate agenda.

The Commonwealth of Tree Hugging Pacifists wil be happily supporting this resolution.

Alright, I don't have the time to read four pages of posts, so I'll just say what I think.

1.) A mental illness would have to affect all those things to require humane treastment for the person.

2.) It should require treatment equal to that of a sane person, within ill one's capability.

A mental illness that allows the person to function and be a useful member of society can be treated. A severe mentall illness is simply a burdon on the system, and despite the fact that they are a living beings, natural selection happens. The weak can't survive. Let them die so the taxes can go to more important things... like nuclear weaponry and developing a system of flinging a neutron star into the sun. M.A.D on a new level.

I agree that the issue is a valid one. I do think that the "and ability to relate to others" is to narrow. As it currently reads it would not benefit all that need the services and protection. Trying to pigeon hole the masses by putting them all under one description is in itself inhumane.

I could see it worded more like:

“‘Mentally ill" means persons, who as a result of a mental disorder exhibit emotional or behavioral functioning which is impaired as to interfere with their capacity to function or remain in the community without supportive treatment or services. These persons mental disability is persistent, resulting in a limitation of their functional capacities for primary activities of daily living such as interpersonal relationships, homemaking, self-care, employment and recreation.”

Having given the subject further consideration (subsequent to having no actual life :P ) it occurs to me that the potentially loose definition of "Mentally Ill" may be a good thing... perhaps each nation could set its own guidelines as to what constitutes sufficient mental illness to qualify for this care?

I voted no on this because, I think we should test the mentally ill on how they got this way, see how they react to inhumane conditions and regular conditions, so we can find a way to stop people from getting mentally ill.

Since it is my proposal at hand, I guess I should make a quick comment. I skimmed through most of this thread. Look, all I am saying is that everyone needs to be treated humanely. No torture or being forced to work in a feces-filled room. I target the mentally-ill in this proposal because special attention does need to paid to them. They are not like you and I. They do not always have the capability to speak up if there is something wrong. In some societies, there is a huge uproar if sane people’s human rights are violated but the mentally-ill are ignored.

No western country on earth tortures its mentally-ill.

The UN needs to stop approving resolutions against indiscriminate torture and murder. They need to vote on things that have an actual point.

So even if the humane treatment grants no return for the citizens? Why support my neighbor if all he will do is take my support and spit on my grave when I die from a shortage?

If they can be brought to functionality, then bring them there, but if they are a vegatable needing the drool wiped off of them every five minutes then why bother? Why care for a fellow if there is none left to care for?

We as a Nation have had some internal debates as to the end results of such a proposal, both good and bad. As it stands, we are going to vote FOR it, but we will internally act upon it (should it pass) as we believe is in our peoples best interest. However, the wording is vague and we fear how some other nations may interpret this proposal, and how they will twist the spirit of this law (again should it pass)



Resolved, all countries that are members of UN be required to treat citizens who are mentally-ill humanely.
-What about non-citizens, POWs? and are you saying the mentally ill should maintain their citizenship and be able to vote? What if a nation should choose to revoke the citizenship of all of its mentally ill?

A mental illness is defined as a psychiatric disorder that results in a disruption in a person's thinking, feeling, moods, and ability to relate to others.
-We cannot see a way this can be twisted, but to a twisted mind maybe another nation can.

This proposal would include a ban on physical abuse, forcing mentally-ill citizens to perform inhumane tasks, or forcing mentally-ill citizens to live and/or work in inhumane conditions.
-*sarcastically* No they are not consentration camps, they are Socially Reeducation camps, or Behavior Modification Facilities. Are people with addictions seen as being a member of the Mentally Ill? if so, how about smokers? Physical abuse yes, but how about mental abuse? Are starvation and sleep deprevation being considered as abuseive, if so how about hypnotic sugestions and pharmasudical drugs?? This can be twisted in many different ways.

Basic services should be offered to all citizens who are mentally-ill.
-Basic services, should be clarified. Again, is it a Mental Hospital, Psyciatric Ward, Asylum, Prison, Work Camp, Grandma's backyard?? Plumbing? Heating? Water? Electricity? Clarification should be considered!

Without defining what is considered a Basic Service each nation can define it in their own way. Without Clarity this Proposal can do more harm then good. A nation can utilize this Proposal to perform some inhuman activities and be protected by its wording.

We voted for it because we plan to follow the spirit of this proposal and to have National Laws that will provide clarity. We hope that each nation will do the same and follow the spirit of this proposal and not twist the wording of it.

We also fear that the worst will happen. For we do not expect this proposal to fail, we believe that Nations will vote for it out of ignorance and naievity. We believe that a Nation of the UN, sadfully will twist the wording to perform and execute actions that would be considered unjustly and inhumanelly. Should this happen, we can only hope that the UN will unitedly stand and opose such actions in time.

sadfully

(im sorry, i couldn't help myself..."sadfully"? :lol:)
(not to insult you if english isn't your native language...i just find it funny...im afraid at times im something of a grammar-freak...)

The resolution is loosely worded, generalized, and invites any kind of interpretation. To vote yes on this bill simply as a feel good measure is wrong!

Keep in mind that from 1905 to 1940, the American mental health system regarded eugenics and sterilization of the mentally ill as being a "treatment."

Allowing the government the authority to interpret what constitutes mental illness, invites tyranny. Those who protested the War in Iraq could be found to be mentally ill, for not recognizing the dangers that country represented, under the authority granted by this bill.

Some mentally ill people may enjoy being mistreated. I see nothing wrong here.

After reading through the resolution again, I have come to the conclusion that it does not prohibit painless death.

Therefore I'll continue the execution of those unable to be re-abilitated. There will not be leaches in my country, the government can only help you help yourself.

After reading the proposal the first time I was willing to vote yes....However can anybody tell me who's idea of humanly/fair/justly we are going to go by? :?:

Envoy Crystal Isle, regretfully its a result of me collages edjumacation. Me know Pscho stuff goodsie, spelling always a little screwy when in rush.
lol. This lead to many rewritings of National Laws.

Squishy, Lord of all that is Squish.

OOC- It ok, I got no problems with it.

(All errors in this msg. are deliberated. lol. Ha, I couldn't help myself.

This concept of living in a mental institution to escape having to work is utterly abusrd. Both of my parents are psychologists, my father himself working in a state hospital. I've been to these places, and just because they get three meals a day and a cot at night does not mean that it is by any remote means comfortable, or even tolerable to some extent. As to these people who say that people with seasonal depression will check themselves into a hospital, any doctor who would suggest that as a cure for seasonal depression is a fool to say the least. The resolution clearly states that we're talking about people that are unable to function on their own, minor mental illnesses are not what the writer was talking about.

In this "state" of yours, is the tax rate 100% with no pre-existing healthcare system? ANYTHING is better then living on the street in my nation.

If you make fun of, or do not support the fair treatment of the mentally ill resolution, I urge you to read this...

If you have ANY human decency...you'll proboly know that it's wrong to hurt someone who's unable to fight back. When you verbally make fun of or abuse the mentally ill...your shooting an unarmed person. Because they proboly are unable to tell what it is your saying...

Is it THEIR fault they're like that? Do we just pick out the bodies we want before we're born? Do we pick out our strengths and weaknesses? That guy wears glasses! Haha! That girl's fat! Haha! His face is ful of pimples! HAha! That kid can't tell when we make fun of him! Haha
I ask you...who's being the ****** here?

The mentally ill are among you and me, they're everywhere. There's no excaping it...chances are, you'll come across one someday. These mentally ill are humans, not freaks of nature. Thus, they should be treated like humans.

Many of the mentally ill are unable to become "normal" (what is normal anyway?), but they can become "better" So don't think that the 4 yr old that can't speak yet will never speak for the rest of his life...

Why are my views so hating against those that do not support this resolution? Because my own 9 yr old brother is one of the mentally ill. (I'm not RPing here)
My parents have proboly spent a few thousands of dollars for speech therapy for my brother who has mild-autism.
His condition makes him a slow learner, and weakens basic skills like catching, throwing, talking, etc.
When he was 4, he just mouth babbled nothing while the other kids were speaking full sentences. He wouldn't be able to speak a 6 letter sentence till he was around 6 or 7.
He's 9 on the outside...but he's litteraly 5 on the inside

But don't think my brother's a waste on society...He masters video games that don't contain text. He finds hundreds of ways to fool my parents into letting him get what he wants. He is able to beat up other kids his age (provided I teach him how to punch better)


But aside from all that...the mentally ill are not trash. They are people. If you consider the mentally ill trash...then you proboly think the the wounded are trash. You proboly think diseased people are trash...

Well guess what...your trash too

Should read the arguments before you post knee-jerk reactionary anecdotes.

"We're blowing up the moon!"

A little over just 60 years ago your brother would have been (in real life,) on a list for sterilization. Given the authority by the United States government.

This resolution is written without limitations on governmental powers. This is what you are advocating. Even if it is just a game, this is not a habit that should be learned. Just because something promises flowers and rainbows, doesn't mean that people should take it at face value. Power corrupts!

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions." Old Irish saying.

Well guess what...your trash too

*bangs colodia's knee with little rubber hammer-thing*
Yep, reflexes still good. Definitely a knee-jerk.
(nods to silveryminnow)

FYI: I also voted for Euthenasia.... I beleive in the quality of life not the quantitly, but there is a balance! Since the Euthenasia has passed, we need to make sure to pass a law that will protect the "mentally ill" from being (as I did compair it too earlier), "put to sleep."
The term "mentally ill," can apply to persons with any abnormality from schizophrenia to downs syndrom. Schizophrenia may be a disease many fear, but it is treatable to a point. Schizophrenics can, with treatment, live happy functional lives. Without care for the "mentally ill" they can end up, as seen in American History, chained as dogs, made to do work that no self regulating human would ever do. Or like in current American cities, end up homeless and panhandeling in the streets. By doing our best to provide care, education, and job training for simple jobs we can help ensure that everyone has the ability to give back to their community and live a happy productive life.

I'm just pissed at some idiots that think the mentally ill should be eliminated from the world...they should have a close family member a victim of a mental problem and THEN I'd like to see what they have to say about killing or isolating them

The mentally ill simply occupy resources which could be used for military gain. The steel in there wheel chairs is capable of making half a plate of 50mm armour tank grade armour. Without the mentally ill, we can better protect ourselfs from the threat of the monkey elephants.

The mentally ill simply occupy resources which could be used for military gain. The steel in there wheel chairs is capable of making half a plate of 50mm armour tank grade armour. Without the mentally ill, we can better protect ourselfs from the threat of the monkey elephants.

yeah sure...while we're at it...let's get rid of the seniors! not to mention people with severe broken legs...oh and we can't forget the paralyzed!

I'm only defending my earlier post here

I have a major in Psychology and a minor in Substance Abuce, I've worked in half-way houses with troubled kids and have subed Special Ed classes, so being someone who has worked with people who have disabilities I know what you are saying. I am also aware of how historically those same people have been treated. It is for these reasons I ask for clarity in this proposal. Take a look at how detailed the American Rehabilitation Act is, within the United States of American. And thats only one law and even that one has been massively amended. Clarity in this proposal, or vagueness as this case may be will lead to in game role playing that will be acted on. I. As the spokesperson for my beautiful and vibrant country The Rogue Nation of Squishy Islands was only acting I would believe fitting. To show how something writen can be twisted and mauled to be justified.


Historical point of Reference being Hitler was a hero to his own country.
Osama bin Ladin a great religious leader, and King Henry the VIII.
All men who took the letter of law and religion and twisted it for their own needs and wants.

I would like this to not happen on our happy virtual world. :D

If you were offended, understand that this is a result of a lack of understand what some of us were saying. Sadfully if you will notice, it looks like the proposal will pass, as I forsaw, as is. Lacking sufficient clarity in my oppinion.

I even voted for it. lol.

Colodia "yeah sure...while we're at it...let's get rid of the seniors! not to mention people with severe broken legs...oh and we can't forget the paralyzed!"

Though you say this sarcasticly and in jest,
Some people really think this way.

yeah sure...while we're at it...let's get rid of the seniors! not to mention people with severe broken legs...oh and we can't forget the paralyzed!

Though you say this sarcasticly and in jest,
Some people really think this way.

kinda sick if they think that way...not only in NS...but in reality...because the ones that are paraliyzed or seniors could be WW2 soldiers...they can be grandpa's...they can be someone that society relies on....

the disabled get a really bad reputation...i can tell ya that

I vote FOR, as a similar law has passed in Malaysia (as in the real-life Malaysia, where I live).

I'm fuzzy on the details (it was passed a while back) but the mentally-ill here, by law, should have easy and fair access to treatment, as well as be given equal opportunities. They should also be given monetary support if it's proven that they cannot afford treatment (or something like that, I know monetary support was part of it).

The proposal went well, nothing like what has been feared in this thread has happened. So I won't worry too much if this resolution is passed.

B*B, Tiara

"kinda sick?" your cute. and you are kind. There are....other names that come to my mind. Globally and historically removing the infermed, aged, disabled and weak has been a common occurence. And yes such people have and do exist and some of them do get into positions of power where they can make their beliefs law. Acts of humanity are harder to do in comparison to acts of brutality.

The mentally ill simply occupy resources which could be used for military gain. The steel in there wheel chairs is capable of making half a plate of 50mm armour tank grade armour. Without the mentally ill, we can better protect ourselfs from the threat of the monkey elephants.

What if you were mentally ill ? What if you were severely injured, and needed to be in a wheelchair? Or have a walking frame? Or crutches? I am sure that you wouldn’t appreciate someone saying that the steel from your aide would have been better off to make weaponry and armor. What if we were in fact the mentally ill ? what if we were in fact the disabled ?

You should never mock the afflicted! After all it's not their fault - is it? Or is it just Karma? in which case it is their just desserts.

Anyway, if we protect the "mentally ill" aren't we protecting most of the politicians who drag our great nation down?

My vote is not yet cast, but is leaning towards No! at this time. Not that it matters as most of you have already voted yes and just show how soft and cuddly you really are...

what i was sorta trying to say in the other post was that what if we are truely the ones that are mentally ill cos we think we are above those who we class to be mentally unfit, what if the mentally ill are the ones that are actually the mentally healty, we are just ignorant to the fact, and because there seems to be more of us, it also amplifies this ignorance. there are more people, so we must be the mentally healthy ones. our lifes are almost as fucked, and mentally "healthy" people can be really cruel. why cant we just accept the people in society for what they are, we arent better than them, we shouldnt look down on them, or make their lives any less bearable than our own. i am sure that if you were mentally ill, you wouldnt like being treated like some sort of alien.

The Republic of SilveryMinnow cannot vote for the resolution as it gives government the authority to determine who is considered "mentally ill." Our nation is one where the citizen's rights are acknowledged over the power of government.

We're with Silvery Minnow on this one. As a government we are deeply irresponsible and our human rights record is appalling. But even we blanche at being given the opportunity to define mental illness for ourselves. We protested about this in the writing stage and still do.
This resolution as written is basically sound, however mental illness is a very, very broad remit and can include everything from personality disorder to alcohol abuse to brain injuries to schizophrenia (and if you really want to go down the classification systems route to seen by psychiatrist, no diagnosis specified - ICD10 for that gem).
The problem I have with this is personality disorder. These are people who have pervasive and chronic difficulties in various aspects of their lives. In the case of antisocial (or dissocial, or psychopathic or dangerous severe, depending on where you live) this includes people who commit crimes, take drugs, get into fights, run major corporations and governments. There is no reliable treatment for this, it is just the way these people are. Also 70% don't have that diagnosis at 5 years.
In England there is a new mental health act coming, it includes a bit on personality disorder (PD), this bit will require psychiatrists to 'treat' and even detain people with a personality disorder even before they have done anything wrong. Yes, they can lock people up just for having a personality that is not the norm.
Fortunately psychiatrists, mental health charities and the Law Society in the UK think these proposals are crazy talk, however the government is adopting its usual attitude to the will of the people and completely ignoring them.
This Bill allows that situation to occur in Nationstates. We in Drakosovar torture, experiment and kill our mentally ill so it's no skin off our nose but we thought other people might care.
Drakos, Head of Psychiatric Research and Assertive Interrogation, Drakosovar

I Voted against the Mentally Ill bill because it's similar in precept as the old question Have you stopped beating your wife.

BY supporting the bill you are in fact admitting that those kinds of horrible things are currently happening or allowed to happen in your country.

Is this what you want? The Class struggles will begin to redefine themselves. If you are going to support legislation like this perhaps you would be better putting them on Large Acreages where they have barracks and are fed and clothed and looked after by a specialized group of people who can deal with them.

It's more cost effective than micromanaging a dozen or more sites.
My 2 cents worth.
Bon Jour.

I for one voted for it for a variety of reasons. First of all, I have a Bachelors Degree in Social Work and used to work directly with the mentally ill. This is a population that is neglected, abused, and very widely and openly discriminated against. These are people that have an illness that they did not ask for, exactly like an individual with cancer. They do not like not being able to work, being called crazy, and having to listen to the voices in their heads telling them to do horribly destructive things. These people are institutionalized and are told they are worthless because of the way they act and behave. We as a society allow these people to be treated like absolute dirt and it is uncalled for.

Secondly, my father has been suffering from Bi-Polar disorder for the last twelve years. He has been humiliated by the system, discriminated against, given horrible medical advice, and treated like a stray dog. During a period in which he was off his medication, he went to Mexico and was missing for six months. When he was found, I had to fly down there to get him out of the hospital due to self inflicted knife wounds to the knee. To make a LONG story short, I returned him to the US where he was institutionalized, thrown out of the hospital because he had "stablized", and we had to find a nursing home for him. FIFTY nursing homes later we finally found somewhere that would take him. Almost everyone told us that they could not take "crazy people", yet those with Altzheimers were accepted with open arms. People want to know why I support this resolution, and it is because those with mental illness deserve to be treated as human beings, not pieces of garbage.

The mentally ill should have the same rights as everyone else.

I oppose this resolution simply because its last line gives them special legal status.

Being retarded isn't something to be ashamed of; but it's nothing to be proud of either.

We here in the Holy Empire of Yorkshyre believe that any basic protection of the mentally ill is better than no protection at all.

Although this does not occur to our knowledge in our fair nation, we admit the possibility of its occurance going undetected.

We also wish to point out that in some nations it blantantly and openly does occur, and that therefore, flawed and rudimentary though this proposal may currently be, to have some kind of legislature in place to begin with is far better than to let the abuse of the mentally ill continue while politicians argue over semantics.

Resolutions can be ammended and improved. The mentally ill cannot however, be 'un'abused, or easily have their dignity restored after years of inhumane treatment.

However disturbed or ill these people are, they are still people, and they deserve a basic standard of decent care.

We are pleased to announce that the Mentally Ill proposal has passed and that our nation has moved quickly in taking action and complying with the legislation as it stands and in accordance with its wordings.

"Resolved, all countries that are members of UN be required to treat citizens who are mentally-ill humanely. "

Shortly after the bill was passed we began a nation wide search for all those people that are being considered mentally ill, they are to be taken to government funded facilities to be taken care of. These facilities are being called Mentally Ill Hospitals (MIH). Residents will receive basic water, food and living services. Here they will be housed, treated and cared for in complete privacy. The temporary segregation is to see to it that the residents are able to focus on their treatment programs. In addition next to each of these facilities is a Mentally Ill Rehabilitation Center (MIRC) where the residents of the MIH will be able to spend their days training their minds and exercising as they assist our nation in its Weapons production.

We have also re-released our nation’s dictionary. We felt that the definition of the UN for mental illness allowed for to much vagueness and needed some interpretation. And so we are adding to the definition of mental illness: dissidents, lawyers, philosophers, religious zealots, drug users and terrorist. “You must be mentally ill if you are going to oppose our government. Ha-ha” said Chancellor York.

We have also made strong laws banning physical abuse against the mentally-Ill however if its part of their behavior modification program this will be over looked, and massive evidence is needed to make a case of abuse for the courts.

We also thank the UN for this proposal, as a side note we are pleased to also announce that our Weapons production is increasing, our population control program is doing quite well, and that both our Mentally Ill Hospitals and our Mentally Ill Rehabilitation Centers are progressing nicely and both will soon be added to our Stock Market with our country holding the Controlling 55% of the stock.

Prime Minister Gordian of The Empire of Evil Martians

We are pleased to announce that the Mentally Ill proposal has passed and that our nation has moved quickly in taking action and complying with the legislation as it stands and in accordance with its wordings.

"Resolved, all countries that are members of UN be required to treat citizens who are mentally-ill humanely. "

Shortly after the bill was passed we began a nation wide search for all those people that are being considered mentally ill, they are to be taken to government funded facilities to be taken care of. These facilities are being called Mentally Ill Hospitals (MIH). Residents will receive basic water, food and living services. Here they will be housed, treated and cared for in complete privacy. The temporary segregation is to see to it that the residents are able to focus on their treatment programs. In addition next to each of these facilities is a Mentally Ill Rehabilitation Center (MIRC) where the residents of the MIH will be able to spend their days training their minds and exercising as they assist our nation in its Weapons production.

We have also re-released our nation’s dictionary. We felt that the definition of the UN for mental illness allowed for to much vagueness and needed some interpretation. And so we are adding to the definition of mental illness: dissidents, lawyers, philosophers, religious zealots, drug users and terrorist. “You must be mentally ill if you are going to oppose our government. Ha-ha” said Chancellor York.

We have also made strong laws banning physical abuse against the mentally-Ill however if its part of their behavior modification program this will be over looked, and massive evidence is needed to make a case of abuse for the courts.

We also thank the UN for this proposal, as a side note we are pleased to also announce that our Weapons production is increasing, our population control program is doing quite well, and that both our Mentally Ill Hospitals and our Mentally Ill Rehabilitation Centers are progressing nicely and both will soon be added to our Stock Market with our country holding the Controlling 55% of the stock.

Prime Minister Gordian of The Empire of Evil Martians

Oh. Forgive us. Many apollo.gies. We got deadline of voting all wrong.
ha ha.

But soon, it shall be so. Numbers look good for our future.

by the way, Crazy Ivan having BIG SALE!! All Grenades must go!!

All these responses, and not one has been directed to the obvious fact that under some sovereign constitutions this act is illegal.

Should the measure pass, the Republic of SilveryMinnow pledges that it will not in fact institute or enforce such obvious tripe on its citizens.

(The delegation bares its buttocks at the U.N. assembly.)

All these responses, and not one has been directed to the obvious fact that under some sovereign constitutions this act is illegal.

Should the measure pass, the Republic of SilveryMinnow pledges that it will not in fact institute or enforce such obvious tripe on its citizens.

(The delegation bares its buttocks at the U.N. assembly.)

Cool! While we're at it...

*Colodian delegate takes a leak on all the members of the UN that are a "NO GO" on the current resolution*

Call me mentally ill will ya? WILL THE VOICES IN MY HEAD WON'T KEEP ME FROM SENDING OUR NATION TO HAVANA!

"Basic services should be offered to all citizens who are mentally-ill."

This is what the last line of the resolution says. It also says that, "Resolved, all countries that are members of UN be required to treat citizens who are mentally-ill humanely. "

This resolution disturbs a nation in my region and I. People who are mentally ill should already be offered basic services and they should already be treated humanely. There is no need for this proposal apart from the bans on physical abuse, forcing mentally-ill citizens to perform inhumane tasks, or forcing mentally-ill citizens to live and/or work in inhumane conditions.

Therefore, I vote against the resolution.

If you are a human male and you get put into a psych hospital for behaving abberantly, they will probably give you antipsychotics, which may permanently disrupt your libido and ability to form an errection

"Basic Services are undefined, according to the capabilities of a nation it could mean, "keep them barely fed, wearing rags and living in a hole in the ground."

The Republic of SilveryMinnow leaves the care of invalids to those of the professional medical services to decide according to the Hippocratic oath. Capitalism through the common market allows them the most freedom to treat the patients in the most efficient manner.

Why on earth would such a bill be passed? Shouldn't all of these rights for the mentally ill be rights for "normal" people?!!

Why on earth would such a bill be passed? Shouldn't all of these rights for the mentally ill be rights for "normal" people?!!

Not the last line, the last line guaretnees the right to steal from others.

They are lumped together with political prisoners, criminals, and "others" in line for euthanasia under the recent UN resolution.

Haha, oh this made dispo.. hrm.. helping them with euthanasia so much easier. Oh sure they will be sent to the best hospital we can allocate at the moment and safely locked up. They are mentally ill.. what are they going to do? Protest? Hah!

There are estimates that up to one in four people are/will be affected by some form of mental illness during their lifetimes, ranging from clinical depression to psychosis and schizophrenia.

As these illnesses are largely caused by chemical imbalances or faults in electrical 'wiring' are we to assume that anyone with any kind of defect will be singled out for the attention that the puerile clowns among us have suggested? Should we, for instance, isolate and lock up everyone who is left-handed?

It seems to me that if we were to segregate people with mental problems the population of this site would be drastically reduced. Hmm, that could provide benefits... :wink:

In a dictatorship, someone suffering from a "psychiatric disorder that results in a disruption in a person's thinking" could be anyone that disagrees with the dictator.

Oppressed Possums
"In a dictatorship, someone suffering from a "psychiatric disorder that results in a disruption in a person's thinking" could be anyone that disagrees with the dictator."

Why you cute little Oppressed Possums, This law only strenghthens our government. If you will read our previouse posts you will be able to read how we plan to exploit, um...hrump, best utilize this new law. :D Already our bi-polar and our autistic citizans were amongst the first to be enrolled in our soon to be government run programs programs.

Oppressed Possums
"could be anyone that disagrees with the dictator."

lol, do you not agree that a person who opposes and challenges their government must be mentally ill. Such people need to be cared for and taken care of by the government for the betterment of the rest of the people in the nation.

We are quite proud of how our nation is run. And we feel such policies as this mentally ill one help to further strenghthen a nation if handled properly. We only hope other nations can see the potential that this law has and will help it become part of the UNs practices

Amphibistan
"As these illnesses are largely caused by chemical imbalances or faults in electrical 'wiring' "

We too feel that is a possible cause for mental illness, we find that electrical currents in large voltage have helped some and chemical modification also helps. Frontal Labotomies have also shown some progess, though we are still trying to perfect the technique. These citizens become quite malleable after their treatment programs are completed. And we are proud of our mentally Ill program

While Godless Savage Garden agrees with the resolution, we fear that the term "humane" can be taken in many directions. Still, there are some universal inhumane actions that this proposal would ban, and this is one of the UN proposals that wouldn't infringe on sovereign rights.

It's useful AND it's not fascist on a global level? This is one of the few...

Still, there are some universal inhumane actions that this proposal would ban, and this is one of the UN proposals that wouldn't infringe on sovereign rights.


It infringes on my "sovereign rights" simply because I vote against it.

Some people will say it is "humane" to "put them out of their misery"

It's all subjective.

I for one have no interest in seeing this resolution passed, unfortunately it would appear that the UN delegate of my region aims to see it differently. Despite this, I have no worries of radically changing my veiws of treatment for the mentally-ill.

To provide housing and otherwise welfare is a drain on an economy when already heart-working red-blodded Meatsockians are suffering. I see no reason for the daft and easily distracted to glean anything special from their unfortunate imbalance. And so, should this resolution pass will have complete intent to take full advantage of the recent legalization of euthanasia as a humane means to rid our country of this burden.

The fact that so many nations have voted on this poorly written, open ended feel good measure has driven every citizen in the Republic of SilveryMinnow Insane.

Thanks so much. :evil:

The Republic of Cannaganja hereby recognizes the Resolution for Fair Treatment of the Mentally Ill as one of the most pathetic and poorly-written resolutions it has ever read. Although the sponsor of the resolution has good interests at heart, it failed to put more than a moment's thought into the legislation. What remains is an over-generalized mountain of garbage. The resolution we are being asked to approve fails to specifically address what qualifies as a mental illness. Furthermore it does not address which of those mental illnesses qualify for "special treatment", nor what that "special treatment" will be. Essentially, this resolution is a pathetic attempt at a Welfare-like program for the mentally ill. In its current form, anyone with anxiety, depression, claustrophobia (in fact, any phobia), can claim amnesty or special treatment under this resolution. The Republic of Cannaganja will not support this resolution and urges that other nations follow suit. This resolution must be scrapped and re-written to address the many issues that remain untouched in its current form. The Republic of Cannaganja would also go so far as to call for a vote to remove the sponsoring nation from the United Nations on grounds of WASTING ALL OF OUR TIME WITH THIS PATHETIC PIECE OF TRASH.

Strange, why is it that people who disagree with a resolution always call it poorly written? Every resolution I've seen, people keep calling it poorly written. Is that the only excuse for going against a resolution and against the majority they can think up or something? It's not like all of us are fluent speakers of the English language or something...

Sanity is the real mental illness. Everyone is "crazy" to some extent. In my nation, they have to earn things.

One particular word is "inhumane." Some people don't like working so they call it "inhumane" and just live off the government.

i felt that the defination of mentally ill was too broadly defined.
i am in support of the intent of the bill but not the wording.

The Rogue Nation of Nazoji recognizes and agrees with the bill and votes in favour of it, though not because its leader agrees exactly with it. Moreso, its leader agrees with what she believes the bill's intent is: to protect those who are not mentally capable of protecting themselves. Nazoji cares deeply for its ill countrymen, whether their affliction is merely "all in their head" or a disease that leaves a Nazojian physically incapable of being an entirely productive member of society. However, the president of Nazoji has a question for other UN members, and perhaps for the author of the bill: what does one define as "mentally ill"? What mental conditions fit under this category?

I oppose this resolution. The mentally ill in my nation are used quite effectively in nuclear radiation testing to determine effects on humans. They don't know what's going on: they think they are testing new tanning salon technology.