NationStates Jolt Archive

The Oppressed People's of Xenophobinia finds this new UN proposal to be ridiculous in it's child-like state. Can you name one state that goes out of its way to treat the mentally ill incorrectly? We find this proposal to be completely redundant, and superfluous. Therefore as a protest to stupidity, we vote against it.

The Supreme Council
of the Oppressed Peoples of
Xenophobinia

Many states go out there way to persecute the mentally ill. Like any vulnerable group the mentally ill are often exploited or ill-treated by society. What is particularly disturbing is the attempts by some to establish a "super race" by executing or sterilising those who show mental deficiency, often even in case where there is no known genetic link to the condition. This has occured in many so called "developed nations", of course Nazi germany, but also in less well known examples. Of particular note is Sweden, who carried out this practice until the 1980's.

Minister for Health
on behalf of
the Holy Emperor
Robert Cameron IV

Mentally ill people should have the same rights as normal people. That's why I support most of the resolution.

However, mentally ill people should have the same rights as normal people. That's why I voted AGAINST this resolution due to the last line in the resolution.

The Oppressed People's of Xenophobinia finds this new UN proposal to be ridiculous in it's child-like state. Can you name one state that goes out of its way to treat the mentally ill incorrectly? We find this proposal to be completely redundant, and superfluous. Therefore as a protest to stupidity, we vote against it.

The Supreme Council
of the Oppressed Peoples of
Xenophobinia

I can. I do it; not because they are different but because they are the same. We treat everyone poorly.

Many states go out there way to persecute the mentally ill. Like any vulnerable group the mentally ill are often exploited or ill-treated by society. What is particularly disturbing is the attempts by some to establish a "super race" by executing or sterilising those who show mental deficiency, often even in case where there is no known genetic link to the condition. This has occured in many so called "developed nations", of course Nazi germany, but also in less well known examples. Of particular note is Sweden, who carried out this practice until the 1980's.

Minister for Health
on behalf of
the Holy Emperor
Robert Cameron IV

Creating a super race is just an extension of "survival of the fittest" and that is how we have become what we are today. Maybe the "developed nations" want to remain developed and not take a turn for the worst by allowing the mentally ill to become the dominating majority. That would be an extreme case, but being that some mental illnesses are genetic, the illnesses could get passed on if reproduction occured. Is that what the world needs? More people who aren't productive and draining the nation? Yes, some mentally ill people can be productive, but many require care there entire life. So not only are they unproductive to the needs of society, but the productivity of the care giver is also reduced.

Many states go out there way to persecute the mentally ill. Like any vulnerable group the mentally ill are often exploited or ill-treated by society. What is particularly disturbing is the attempts by some to establish a "super race" by executing or sterilising those who show mental deficiency, often even in case where there is no known genetic link to the condition. This has occured in many so called "developed nations", of course Nazi germany, but also in less well known examples. Of particular note is Sweden, who carried out this practice until the 1980's.

Minister for Health
on behalf of
the Holy Emperor
Robert Cameron IV

Creating a super race is just an extension of "survival of the fittest" and that is how we have become what we are today. Maybe the "developed nations" want to remain developed and not take a turn for the worst by allowing the mentally ill to become the dominating majority. That would be an extreme case, but being that some mental illnesses are genetic, the illnesses could get passed on if reproduction occured. Is that what the world needs? More people who aren't productive and draining the nation? Yes, some mentally ill people can be productive, but many require care there entire life. So not only are they unproductive to the needs of society, but the productivity of the care giver is also reduced.

no...that's denying your fellow man the right to live

no...that's denying your fellow man the right to live

Is there really a right to live? Where is that stated at?

no...that's denying your fellow man the right to live

Is there really a right to live? Where is that stated at?

good question...I'm not sure myself...but isn't it a basic humanity right to LIVE?

I mean...if you have the right to live a life, and if I have the right to live a life, then that guy on the street should have the right to live a life ya?

i suppose this all depends on what we consider to be the meaning of the word life. just because something has a heartbeat, can breathe, can possibly think even on the lowest of all possible levels, does that mean it truly LIVES?

life on the basis of 'my body has some sort of involuntary funtion but i cannot control it well' is not truly LIFE.

what is LIFE?

the ability to pursue happiness and thrills, experience success and failure, experiment with ones body, mind, soul...are these not some of the things that make us ALIVE? climbing a mountain, playing a sport, reading a novel, writing a novel, falling in love, the EXPERIENCE of LIFE!!!

to be mentally deficient to the point of being unable to think on ones own, to be physically incapacitated to depending on a feeding tube to eat, or be unable to perform basic tasks such as walking on ones own, going to the bathroom on ones own, cleaning oneself, to require 24/7 supervision because you are a danger to yourself as well as potentially others...this is not life. its existence, but its not life.

life inherently infers that you are LIVING. these aformentioned situations, these people are not living, they are existing, and because of this, we should not waste time, efforts, and monies that are better spent elsewhere.

we cannot help these people. they cannot be suddenly morphed into normal human beings by throwing money at them and giving them incessant care. they are a drain, emotionally and finanically, on their families whether the family chooses to accept this as fact or not.

therefore instead of spending tens of thousands of dollars per person annually caring for people who can never be of any kind of service to a nation, a community, or even a family, i have 2 alternative requests to this bill.

1) that mentally ill patients who are deemed unsafe to society, unable to care for themselves or otherwise useless, may be terminated at the governments choosing for the purpse of putting these people out of their misery, and putting to better use the funds that would have been wasted on them,

or

2) that nations who demand that these people be well cared for agree to take these mentally ill people from other nations that do not see fit to treat them with the kid gloves care this bill requires or are incapable of doing so, for the purposes of compliance with their own legislation.



it only takes $1100 per person, asa one time fee, to terminate and creamate a mentally ill patient but it takes on average $53,000 per person annuallyto care for them and we never know when they will finally expire.

while this approach may seem callous to the reader who passes over this quickly, clearly it makes the most economical sense as well as eliminates these imperfect genes from the gene pool, leading to a more perfect people and more productive people for the benefit of the world.

i suppose this all depends on what we consider to be the meaning of the word life. just because something has a heartbeat, can breathe, can possibly think even on the lowest of all possible levels, does that mean it truly LIVES?

life on the basis of 'my body has some sort of involuntary funtion but i cannot control it well' is not truly LIFE.

what is LIFE?

the ability to pursue happiness and thrills, experience success and failure, experiment with ones body, mind, soul...are these not some of the things that make us ALIVE? climbing a mountain, playing a sport, reading a novel, writing a novel, falling in love, the EXPERIENCE of LIFE!!!

to be mentally deficient to the point of being unable to think on ones own, to be physically incapacitated to depending on a feeding tube to eat, or be unable to perform basic tasks such as walking on ones own, going to the bathroom on ones own, cleaning oneself, to require 24/7 supervision because you are a danger to yourself as well as potentially others...this is not life. its existence, but its not life.

life inherently infers that you are LIVING. these aformentioned situations, these people are not living, they are existing, and because of this, we should not waste time, efforts, and monies that are better spent elsewhere.

we cannot help these people. they cannot be suddenly morphed into normal human beings by throwing money at them and giving them incessant care. they are a drain, emotionally and finanically, on their families whether the family chooses to accept this as fact or not.

therefore instead of spending tens of thousands of dollars per person annually caring for people who can never be of any kind of service to a nation, a community, or even a family, i have 2 alternative requests to this bill.

1) that mentally ill patients who are deemed unsafe to society, unable to care for themselves or otherwise useless, may be terminated at the governments choosing for the purpse of putting these people out of their misery, and putting to better use the funds that would have been wasted on them,

or

2) that nations who demand that these people be well cared for agree to take these mentally ill people from other nations that do not see fit to treat them with the kid gloves care this bill requires or are incapable of doing so, for the purposes of compliance with their own legislation.



it only takes $1100 per person, asa one time fee, to terminate and creamate a mentally ill patient but it takes on average $53,000 per person annuallyto care for them and we never know when they will finally expire.

while this approach may seem callous to the reader who passes over this quickly, clearly it makes the most economical sense as well as eliminates these imperfect genes from the gene pool, leading to a more perfect people and more productive people for the benefit of the world.

so...now money is more important then someone's brother? someone's son? someone's father?

And...are you describing the mentally ill as "100% disabled freaks?" cuz that DOESN'T describe a mentally ill person...I happen to know someone who's mentally ill...and he's not a danger to society, he gives back as much as he takes, he doesn't require 24/7 attention, he's invisible in a crowd

well, if someone is able to interact in a social enviroment and be a productive member of society perhaps they are not mentally ill, just because some doctor says they are. obviously, if they are able to function in the complex world we live in today, they cant be very ill, can they?

however, the spirit of this bill does not pertain to these type of people, it pertains to the person who can be taken advantage of, the person who cannot function in society, the person who DOES need 24/7 care, as the purpose is to mandate all nations of the UN punish companies who mistreat these particular types of people.

in this instanc, where the person is so incapacitated they cannot be a productive member of society, where they need 24/7 care, where they are nothing except a burden on both family and state, then, yes, they are not important. they are a strain. they are the dead weight that holds the rest of us back, and should be mercifully terminated or sent to a foreign country that will care for them if that nation so chooses.

since the legislation provided does not differentiate the different levels of porported mental illness, perhaps it should be re-written to define the type of person it is specifically attempting to protect.

well, if someone is able to interact in a social enviroment and be a productive member of society perhaps they are not mentally ill, just because some doctor says they are. obviously, if they are able to function in the complex world we live in today, they cant be very ill, can they?

however, the spirit of this bill does not pertain to these type of people, it pertains to the person who can be taken advantage of, the person who cannot function in society, the person who DOES need 24/7 care, as the purpose is to mandate all nations of the UN punish companies who mistreat these particular types of people.

in this instanc, where the person is so incapacitated they cannot be a productive member of society, where they need 24/7 care, where they are nothing except a burden on both family and state, then, yes, they are not important. they are a strain. they are the dead weight that holds the rest of us back, and should be mercifully terminated or sent to a foreign country that will care for them if that nation so chooses.

since the legislation provided does not differentiate the different levels of porported mental illness, perhaps it should be re-written to define the type of person it is specifically attempting to protect.

no...the creator of that resolution defined what he meant:

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.

but disruption to what degree? how much of a disruption is the illness if the person is able to hold donw a job, is responsible enough to pay their bills and make a life for themselves? how much disruption does this person incur?

as opposed to the scenario with which i defined?

is not someone with an extra chromosome who is unable to walk, eat, go to the bathrrom, hold their own head up, unable to see, speak, interact, not more disrupted than someone who just happens to have a below average IQ and is deemed 'slow', but is still able to function more or less normally, just takes them a little longer to learn things that a 'normal' person would?

should there not be a disctinction? can anyone possibly state there is no difference in their mental deficiencies? is the person defined as slow someone who can be taken advantage of much more easily than a normal person? clearlythey cannot be taken advantage of with anywhere near the ease of someone with an extra chromosome (if i could remember the name of the condition i would type it in, its a rare condition but its eventually fatal, people with this condition often fail to live past 16)

to not make a distinction in these cases is irresponsible.

btw its 135am here and im going to bed.

catch ya tomorrow :D

btw its 135am here and im going to bed.

catch ya tomorrow :D

see ya Yankee...10:37 here :roll:

1.we cannot help these people. they cannot be suddenly morphed into normal human beings by throwing money at them and giving them incessant care. they are a drain, emotionally and finanically, on their families whether the family chooses to accept this as fact or not.





2.while this approach may seem callous to the reader who passes over this quickly, clearly it makes the most economical sense as well as eliminates these imperfect genes from the gene pool, leading to a more perfect people and more productive people for the benefit of the world.

1. It's amazing that you're able to decide what is an emotional drain for a family.

2. Cleaning out the gene pool? Isn't that a little redundant, I don't expect any of the mentally ill to be giving offspring, do you?

Besides, if there was a special UN program to help fund this, then I would support it. But as it is, the countries with very poor economies, and the countries with free-trade, are going to have people or government who cannot afford to keep their family alive. And that's a far crueler choice than killing them all as government policy.

note: I added numbers to your post myself to show which reply was to what. the last comment is not a comment to the quote person, it's a general statement of the affairs of this proposal as the oppressed peoples of xenophobinia sees them.

Haondor opposes this resolution for the simple fact that it is far too vague and poorly worded.

We should provide basic services for the mentally ill. Fine, what are basic services?

Define inhumane treatment? If I were to work the mentally ill in a sweatshop, a full work day for say........3 cents an hour, but keep that sweatshop clean and dry, and provide them with sufficient meals and rest, would that be inhumane? "Fair wages" and "Human rights" are not the same thing, and due to the ease with which this proposal can be selectively interpreted it requires only that the mentally ill be treated well while being exploited.

We believe the proposal's heart is in the right place, but we will vote against it since it serves no real purpose. But as usual we see that this body is voting en masse for a resolution simply because it sounds good. We are inclined to think that a resolution entitled "Love the cuddly kittens and pretty butterflies" would pass by a landslide the way some our ....esteemed colleagues choose to vote.

It is really a decission to make by state. the ancient romans regularly put to death the mentally ill and deformed people. The spartans killed newborns if they suspected that they may be mentally or physically deformed in any way. Darwins law had its play there. If they had alowed them to live the would have taken food and other resources without contributing at all to society. Simply for ancient practices i can not in good mind force my citizens to stop practices that they've practiced for centuries.


His royal highness,
Gambit
Fid

The proposal is just another example of some leader sending in a proposal - just to be sending one in... Its not well thought out. Its clearly the work of your typical "joke" of a leader; who takes everything as non-serious and desires to burden everyone else with their poor sense of practical jokes.

It is really a decission to make by state. the ancient romans regularly put to death the mentally ill and deformed people. The spartans killed newborns if they suspected that they may be mentally or physically deformed in any way. Darwins law had its play there. If they had alowed them to live the would have taken food and other resources without contributing at all to society. Simply for ancient practices i can not in good mind force my citizens to stop practices that they've practiced for centuries.


His royal highness,
Gambit
Fid

good morning all.

the point of all of my previous posts was that the legislation proposed to way too vague. not only that, but its also poorly written and in an unstructured format.

it seems nations just spew a few sentences into a paragraph and look for a vote to be put through. this is unprofessional, not to mention ridiculous.

the proposed mentally ill bill is not structured enough. it asks for humane treatment. how do we define humane treatment? how do we define, as i stated in previous posts, who is and isnt mentally ill?

mental illness comes in substanstial variety of levels. at what level is someone considered ill, vs maybe, handicapped?

some doctors called giving meds to a mentally ill person til they are practically comatose cruel and unusual punishment. for every doctor who says this there are 2 more who say its the only proper way to treat them. who do we believe and which method do we accept?

this is juts one example of why the bill is too vague. do you want to have potential sanctions vs your nation because you unwittingly made the wrong choice? especially since you may not have had the chance to know that there even was a wrong choice?

to just throw out a blanket statement like 'all mentally ill people should be treated correctly' is irresponsible. its even more irresponsible to vote affirmatively on such a blanket statement.

While the Holy Empire of Creighton Reign is not opposed to the betterment of society, it IS opposed to vague, blanket statements being put through as potential legislation.

please define and outline your bills properly and your successful conversion ratios will greatly increase. they will also allow for bill modification to make all nations happier.

We should provide basic services for the mentally ill. Fine, what are basic services?


Rigsmania's point exactly. Is basic cable a basic service? Full health care? A living wage for weaving baskets? Transportation? Season tickets to the local major league stadium?

Is it possible UN members would wind up discriminating against some people and denying them access to the same level of services because they are NOT mentally ill? How do I tell Grandma that Rigsmania will pay the full rent for someone who is mildly retarded, but she has to choose which utility she'll have turned off this month because she's too old to find a job but, unfortunately, she's lucid and intelligent?

If the cost of these basic services bring some country's treasury down to the point of having to cut other services like fire protection, disease control and defense, will the other UN countries kick some money in the pot?

That last line of the proposal is way too vague for a sovereign to aggree to support without knowing first what it will cost the country as a whole.

What The Most Serene Republic of Lubria finds most offensive about the proposed resolution is not the vague definition of "Basic services", or what constitutes inhumane treatment, but the very definition of mental illness.

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 definition is far too vague. Far too many innocent conditions fall under the proposals definition of mental illness. Homosexuality, for example, if viewed from a heterosexual’s point of view, or heterosexuality, if viewed from a homosexual's point of view. Criminal behavior falls under the definition as well, are we to release all our prisoners at once because this resolution deems the ability to ruthlessly murder a human being a mental illness, and thus the imprisonment of the murder an inhumane treatment?

Were there a clear and absolute definition of mental illness, were there a clear and absolute definition of what constitutes basic services, and were there a clear and absolute definition of what constitutes inhumane treatment, The Most Serene Republic of Lubria would not be so object to including our support for this proposed resolution. However, none of these conditions have been satisfied.

The proposal at hand suffers from poor composition, and I am surprised it ever came to a vote before this august body.

The mentally ill deserve humane treatment, of course, but this proposal is vague as to what truly constitutes mental illness, what constitutes inhumane treatment of the mentally ill, and what constitutes basic services. The Most Serene Republic of Lubria is therefore compelled to vote against this resolution.

considering the amount of anti-bill debate here and the fact the bill has overwhelming (reagan-dukakis type overwhelming) votes in favor it lends me to believe that for the most part people could give a rats ass about these boards or its discussions.

therefore, the only way to correct these issues is to write new legislation that corrects the previously passed error prone resolutions at a later date

no...that's denying your fellow man the right to live

Is there really a right to live? Where is that stated at?
I'm pretty sure that The Right To Live is stated in the Human Rights Act (unless real-world resolutions like that dont apply here)

If not, there's no current international legislation stating a right to life, and I'm off to write one!

Major Johnson
Nibbleton

therefore, the only way to correct these issues is to write new legislation that corrects the previously passed error prone resolutions at a later date

That is exactly what we were thinking. It does look as if the proposal will pass with overwhelming support, all the more reason to begin the debate for a Revised Proposal for the Classification and Treatment of the Mentally Ill now.

[Edit: Corrected to clarify I was responding to Creighton Reign's post, and not Nibbleton's]

seeing as its only my second day and that no one else in my region has completed their UN resolution right now i cannot submit a proposal.

however i have one already drafted to address the ad hoc sloppiness with which proposals are currently written.

as soon as i have another member of my region join the UN, which should be tomorrow, i will present it.

I think there should be a resolution to deny the mentally ill their rights, give them lasers on their wheelchairs, and use them for the war machine. :)

I think there should be a resolution to deny the mentally ill their rights, give them lasers on their wheelchairs, and use them for the war machine. :)