NationStates Jolt Archive

though recently elected as my region's UN Delegate, i have taken this opportunity to revoke the previous proposal to legalize euthanasia. i understand the controversy behind this very touchy subject but we MUSN'T let the UN have such powers as to decide a person's fate, their death! the gov't should only decide to take away the lives away from criminals, not innocent people! there is a proposal on the UN proposal list that moves to ban euthanasia, as proposed by kybernetia. we need to support this measure and ensure that the UN musn't allow the atrocious acts of euthanasia to spoil this wonderful organization. We must have a UNITED FRONT to BAN EUTHANASIA. APPROVE THE BAN! VOTE NOW! :idea:

~President Danilo of Danilotown

Repeals aren't allowed by game mechanics.

Yes! Ban it! Everyone knows euthenesiacs eat babies! :roll:

Whilst I am not pleased with the specifics of the legislation we have, I would ask you this:

Why should a human being not be able to choose to have a doctor end his/her life?

"Whilst I am not pleased with the specifics of the legislation we have, I would ask you this:

Why should a human being not be able to choose to have a doctor end his/her life?"

It is the duty of a doctor to keep and to maintain human life (oath of hippocrates) and not to kill it. Euthanasia is a flagrant violation of this.

Secondly: the freedom we have exists because we are alive. Life is the conditio sine qua non for freedom. We are not going to judge on suicide (which most religious see as sin against the almighty) but it is outrageous to demand another person to support or actually kill another person. This is in our view unjustifiable

Sincerely yours

Marc Smith, president of Kybernetia

So you would allow a healthy person to kill themselves but if someone was unable to do it themselves (if they are bed ridden or don't have enough strength) they can't get help?

The Hippocratic oath has changed in the past and besides who said doctors have to be the ones who kill people. They don't even have to make that decision.

But all this is irrelevant as the law has already passed and can not be repealed.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?
Meet The Reps (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588)

It is good to see a member who has passion for what they believe in, but I must concur with my esteemed colleague from Rehochipe. This is a game mechanics proposal by which we mean that even if we did want to repeal it, it would be impossible since the game does not have a function to reverse the initial effect the resolution had on individual member states.

Secondly, I feel it is contradictory to argue the sanctity of life whilst at the same time saying the state has the right to take life. Not everyone convicted of a crime may be guilty, but this is another argument all together.

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
HM Government of Telidia.

This is why issues such as this and abortion should be left to each individual country and not the UN. Too much petty squabbling. It takes away frm any real productivity and advancement where it would be needed. :roll: Now, I'm not beign picky or anything but it seems to me that there is already a daily issue about this....

This is why issues such as this and abortion should be left to each individual country and not the UN. Too much petty squabbling. It takes away frm any real productivity and advancement where it would be needed. :roll: Now, I'm not beign picky or anything but it seems to me that there is already a daily issue about this....

@Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World


"So you would allow a healthy person to kill themselves but if someone was unable to do it themselves (if they are bed ridden or don't have enough strength) they can't get help?"
We are not saying that: we leave the question of suicide to the individual states. But we want to lay out the following questions to you: How is it possible to prevent people from committing suicide? Those it make sense to punish it, and if yes with what? Death penalty???

"The Hippocratic oath has changed in the past and besides who said doctors have to be the ones who kill people. They don't even have to make that decision."

We have given our arguments in our proposal. The main one is that there is going to be pressure against old and sick people who need the support of the society (and who are a financial burden to the society) fell pressured to ask for the death in order not to remain a burden for others. Although that maybe not intended it is in fact the consequence of this law.

"But all this is irrelevant as the law has already passed and can not be repealed."

We are apologizing that we have failed not to inform ourselves properly about the UN rules. We are a new nation and a new member. However we want to throw in the discussion whether this regulation is appropiate. It certainly makes sense not to allow an imidate repeal. But after an appropiate term (e.g. one year) we think it should be possible for the UN members to reconsider. But we no and understand that we can not suggest that as a proposal. However we would like the owners of this site to consider this issue.


"Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?" - quite honostly: I don´t now. From the name I would assume that it has to do with homosexuality, but frankly spoken I don´t no what this is all about


Sincerely yours

Marc Smith, president of Kybernetia, founder of the free-trade region Futura, regional delegate of Futura

P.S. anybody interested in joining this region? Send me a telegram

@Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World


"So you would allow a healthy person to kill themselves but if someone was unable to do it themselves (if they are bed ridden or don't have enough strength) they can't get help?"
We are not saying that: we leave the question of suicide to the individual states. But we want to lay out the following questions to you: How is it possible to prevent people from committing suicide? Those it make sense to punish it, and if yes with what? Death penalty???

"The Hippocratic oath has changed in the past and besides who said doctors have to be the ones who kill people. They don't even have to make that decision."

We have given our arguments in our proposal. The main one is that there is going to be pressure against old and sick people who need the support of the society (and who are a financial burden to the society) fell pressured to ask for the death in order not to remain a burden for others. Although that maybe not intended it is in fact the consequence of this law.

"But all this is irrelevant as the law has already passed and can not be repealed."

We are apologizing that we have failed not to inform ourselves properly about the UN rules. We are a new nation and a new member. However we want to throw in the discussion whether this regulation is appropiate. It certainly makes sense not to allow an imidate repeal. But after an appropiate term (e.g. one year) we think it should be possible for the UN members to reconsider. But we no and understand that we can not suggest that as a proposal. However we would like the owners of this site to consider this issue.


"Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?" - quite honostly: I don´t now. From the name I would assume that it has to do with homosexuality, but frankly spoken I don´t no what this is all about


Sincerely yours

Marc Smith, president of Kybernetia, founder of the free-trade region Futura, regional delegate of Futura

P.S. anybody interested in joining this region? Send me a telegram

"Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?" - quite honostly: I don´t now. From the name I would assume that it has to do with homosexuality, but frankly spoken I don´t no what this is all about

Okay I don't have time to comment on the rest of your post (tomorrow) but I just love it when people comment on 'gay science'…. I'll have to include it in my meet the reps entry. It came up here http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=146708.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?
Meet The Reps (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588)

It is already banned in the People's Republic of Muraliland....

It is already banned in the People's Republic of Muraliland....

Not if you're a UN member. Having said that, the 'Legalise Euthanasia' reolution that passed was rubbish, so there's bound to be a loophole you can exploit.

Art Randolph
Speaker for Legal Affairs

@honourable Senator Ecopoeia,


"Not if you're a UN member. Having said that, the 'Legalise Euthanasia' reolution that passed was rubbish, so there's bound to be a loophole you can exploit." - we are please to hear that.
We are seeing one lophole:

"In the case of a freak situation in which a person has no serious illness or is over a certain age, if the person cannot make the decision"

certain age is undefind. It lays in the disgracion of any souvereign state to define it and just set a low age as the barrier.

"Everyone over a certain age or with a life-threatening illness should be given the right to decide whether, in such a situation, they want to live on for as long as possible, or die" - over a certain age is also a undefind phrase. It is the right of every nation to define it according to its disgracion.

Therefore we consider it possible to defind the same age as begining and end to claim this right, which practically means: no one can claim it.

Therefore this resolution is virtually irrelevant.
The issue is actually still an issue for any state to decide in its own souvereignity.

We would like to hear from you, honourable Senator, if you are agreeing with our legal position.

Sincerely yours

Marc Smith, president of the republic of Kybernetia, regional delegate of Futura

Having given this some more thought, I believe your nation is off the hook anyway. I'm not convinced that the nations are bound by resolution passed prior to their accession to the UN.

The original resolution was well-intentioned garbage, much like many resolution, sadly. Ecopoeia allows euthanasia, though it is very closely monitored. In addition, suicide is legal, though not encouraged. Obviously.

It makes us feel like grumpy filibusters, but Ecopoeia finds itself rejecting probably three quarters of all resolutions that come to a vote.

Kind regards.

Art Randolph
Speaker for Legal Affairs

It will considerably hurt my economy because old people that are on their death bed cost a lot of money. Something that my basketweaving companies should and will not pay for in taxes. :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

Never..Fuhrer Land fully endorses euthansia to wipe out the weak,sickly , and rebelllious.

@honourable representative from Ecopoeia,
distinguis Speaker of Legal affairs Art Randolph,

we thank you for your immidiate answer.


"Having given this some more thought, I believe your nation is off the hook anyway. I'm not convinced that the nations are bound by resolution passed prior to their accession to the UN."
We would that consider that unusually because it is a common priniple that when you are entering an international instituition you have to accept all the regulations and rules (also the past onces). Otherwise you would be privileged towards they older members who most obey them. By the way: what would happend if a country leaves the UN, stripping itself of al its regulations and rules and later rejoins it, without being forced to fulfil all regulations previously passed?? If that would be the case everybody could avoid UN decisions by simply leaving it and latter rejoining it. That doesn´t sound plausible to me.

"It makes us feel like grumpy filibusters, but Ecopoeia finds itself rejecting probably three quarters of all resolutions that come to a vote."

Well: up until now we didn´t find a resolution to agree with, although we have just seen two resolutions sinds we are member of the UN. Especially the newest one (40 hour-week) needs to be considered as unacceptable.

Regardless of the question whether past resolutions before our membership to the UN are mandatory to us (which we believe) or not, we consider the past resolution in fact as irrelevant, due to the loophole it offers, which we consider as being so wide that the question whether to allow euthanasia or not remains the decisio of the sovereign nation state.

Sincerely yours

Marc Smith, president of Kybernetia, founder of the free-trade region Futura, regional delegate of Futura

It is exactly because of opions like those of "Fuhrer landw" or "I will destroy all" that we are asking for the banning of euthanasia

It is exactly because of opions like those of "Fuhrer landw" or "I will destroy all" that we are asking for the banning of euthanasia

I understand. However, it is legal in nations that have been in the UN since the resolution's inception (some time in January, I believe) and unfortunately cannot be repealed. Ban it in your nation, I have no problem with this. However, Ecopoeia would object to a UN ban on the same grounds that we objected to the UN legalisation that was regrettably instated by the afore-mentioned resolution.

Kind regards,

Art Randolph
Speaker for Legal Affairs

Voluntary euthanasia is the law of the UN. It cannot be changed.

We lost a few members over this one.

@Collaboration

"Voluntary euthanasia is the law of the UN. It cannot be changed.

We lost a few members over this one."

According to the dinstinguish member of Ecolopaia, the honourable Speaker for Legal Affairs Art Randolph pointed out the resolution offers a wide lophole which in fact allows all countries to allow or ban euthanasia.
(see the discussion before)


We would recommend the UN to review this issue and declare the resolution invalid due to technical mistakes in it.

Sincerely yours

Marc Smith, president of Kybernetia