NationStates Jolt Archive

Outlaw Involuntary Euthanasia

In this world there are people who refuse to see their fellow man as anything other than numbers or statistics. There are people who allow money to be more important than their citizens. The UN has legalised euthanasia in the "Legalise Euthanasia" proposal, but it does not address the danger of forced euthanasia.

Some would argue that such a thing would fall under the laws that outlaw murder, but this is not neccessarily so. Some people, and some nations desire to institute a practice of euthanasia upon the elderly, the mentally ill, or the sick. They would do this not because the affected wish it, but because they deem these people "burdens to society." Then they would say something or give the practice some nice-sounding name in an attempt to justify it. So in light of this, I propose that the UN place a ban on Involuntary Euthanasia.

The terms of this proposal are:

1. No nation has the right to take take the life of a person because of sickness, mental incapacitation or illnes, or because of age, without that person's approval as defined by "Legalise Euthanasia."

2. This proposal will not change the terms of the "Legalise Euthanasia" proposal.

3. The proposal does not affect the death penalty in nations that institute it.




Please approve this proposal.

The United Socialist States of Vanua approves of this resolution.

Thankyou, please tell others about it.

Markodonia believe this to be an important resolution that further strengthens "Legalise Euthanasia" while protecting the rights of individuals.

1. No nation has the right to take take the life of a person because of sickness, mental incapacitation or illnes, or because of age, without that person's approval as defined by "Legalise Euthanasia."

2. This proposal will not change the terms of the "Legalise Euthanasia" proposal.


No, it only directly contradicts it.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

In what manner? The letter of the original resolution is to allow voluntary and non-voluntary euthanasia. This resolution bans involuntary euthanasia, which (although unfortunately badly defined by Randomocitia) is euthanasia *against* the wishes of the intended recipricant.

'Legalise Euthanasia' legalised involuntary euthanasia. By making involuntary euthanasia illegal you are contradicting what was said in 'Legalise Euthanasia' .

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

In which case the resolution is acting in the spirit of the original, if not the letter. However, operative clause two could perhaps do with revision as you suggest. Then again again, it's not my resolution :D

If it changes anything about the first resolution, with the exception of 'tightening up', it is against the rules.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

So you are saying that we should allow the nations of the world to start killing all the elderly people. That is certainly what it sounds like you are saying.

And thanks Markodonia, for your support.

So you are saying that we should allow the nations of the world to start killing all the elderly people. That is certainly what it sounds like you are saying.
No, it sounds to me like she is saying :
If it changes anything about the first resolution, with the exception of 'tightening up', it is against the rules.
But if you need help under-standing, she is saying, that if your proposal changes anything about the first one or contains a clause which contradicts the first proposal dealing with the issue, or does so in any other way then " tightening it up ", that is increasing its strength, and doing only that, then it is against the rules. Clearly this is her concern.

* It might be important to add many were un-happy with the first proposal as it was deemed more of a moral subject, subject to the will of member nation governments, that and there was a N.S. issue already dealing with it. Not that that ever seems to stop people " going nuts with it ", as it were ...

In fact, the national issue still gives the chance to say " no " to euthanasia, but I am not sure if that issue is still in circulation or not.

Even so, regarding strictly your proposal and thinking also in relation to the original :
In this world there are people who refuse to see their fellow man as anything other than numbers or statistics.
Welcome to Komokom, 1/2 Father Knows Best, 1/2 Compulsory Consumerist State.
There are people who allow money to be more important than their citizens.
See directly above. I want low taxees. So spank me.
The UN has legalised euthanasia in the "Legalise Euthanasia" proposal, but it does not address the danger of forced euthanasia.
Well, after a deep reading of the " Legalise Euthanasia " resolution, I could probably argue that as crap a proposal as it is, it does only legalise euthanasia in very specific conditions. Further-more, before even going on to think about out-lawing " forced euthanasia " you should go to the " Got Issues? " forum and check for the list of national issues, and to make sure yours is not conflicting with on of these. I know from memory there are some which deal with various measures of population control.
Some would argue that such a thing would fall under the laws that outlaw murder, but this is not neccessarily so.
Ummm, sorry, but I thought " Don't Kill People " would already cover " Don't Kill Old People ". :D
Some people, and some nations desire to institute a practice of euthanasia upon the elderly, the mentally ill, or the sick.
And ?
They would do this not because the affected wish it, but because they deem these people "burdens to society."
Read as " Thou shalt not try to copy Brave New World " ... ;)
Then they would say something or give the practice some nice-sounding name in an attempt to justify it.
" Reclaimation of phospates " ? Sulphurs ? I can't find my copy of Brave New World ...
So in light of this, I propose that the UN place a ban on Involuntary Euthanasia.
In light of what ? That some countries have their own population capping or limiting policies ? Okay, maybe its not a good thing, but really, my main gripe is this huge pre-amble. It just does not seem to define much. Until it gets to the end. Then I finally know what it is about, and I want to reclaim 2 minutes of my life. :)
The terms of this proposal are:
" The N.S.U.N. resolves, that : " :D
1. No nation has the right to take take the life of a person because of sickness, mental incapacitation or illnes, or because of age, without that person's approval as defined by "Legalise Euthanasia."
Now we are getting down to business, I am starting to like this proposal.
2. This proposal will not change the terms of the "Legalise Euthanasia" proposal.
Well, finally you get to the assurance part. ;)
3. The proposal does not affect the death penalty in nations that institute it.
Hmmm. So its legal for countries to have the death penalty. But its not legal to kill old people. Or the mentally Ill. Or the "Sick" ... Now here, I think things have to be more cohesive and explanatory. Its nice to have a long pre-amble and short clauses I am sure, but I think in this case it might be better to have it the other way around.

Hope that helps. :)

'Legalise Euthanasia' legalised involuntary euthanasia. By making involuntary euthanasia illegal you are contradicting what was said in 'Legalise Euthanasia' .

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

No, it doesn´t. On the contary: it clerly states that it should be the patience choice only. Furthernmore the proposal is refering to that resolution and defines that the person's approval shall be defined as by "Legalise Euthanasia."- resolution.

This resolution is in no way an appeal against the past resolution.

It is designed in order to prevent countries from killing sick, old and disabled people. Such a threat is real. In the real word the Nazis conducted a program of killing "unworthy life" in the late 1930s and early 1940s.
This resolution bans such hidious criminal practices in the world of Nation States. I urge all delegates to endorse the proposal so that it reaches quorum, can be approved as a resolution and becomes binding international law for all UN member nations.

" @ " Kybernetica ...

Yes, well, I feel my delegates concern was at the initial title/explanations and due to the un-clear nature of the past euthanasia resolution, and the some-what mildly confusing nature of this effort.

And probably all in relation to the fact that traditionally, the actual act of euthanasia is carried out with permission but not always voluntary, in that by the time you would wish it or have instructed it to be carried out you cannot " voluntarily " do it, due to the progression of age or ill-ness making it impossible to do it or communicate it. So I would have thought it easy to see how some confusion may have evolved from the situation.

Ok, the thing is, I am really against euthanasia to begin with. So I know that my proposla cannot do anything to change it.

I also know that some people think we should institute a practice of killing the elderlt at a certain age, or killing people who are very sick, or metally ill, or who are deemed a "burden to society." Basically, some people want to institute shall we say, abortion in reverse. The systematic murder of a person because of their age. And then they would call it "euthanasia." They would say something to attempt to make it souund and seem like they had actually done some sort of good thing.

And doing such a thing is something entirely different from euthanasia. It's genocide. Euthanasia as defined by the United Nations, gives people under the conditiond it specifies, a choice. I would think that my proposal would be favorable to both supporters and opponents of euthanasia, seeing as it both helps to more clearly define euthanasia, and it supports human rights.

That is was I was aiming to do mainly. Defend the human rights of the elderly. And I saw that the same practice could be applied to the sick or mentally ill, so I added that to the proposal.

I wrote this proposal as I would write it for reality. Perhaps I am not the greatest among proposal makers, but it is a good thing then, that none of us are in the real UN, isn't it? :)

Currently, the proposal has garnered 52 approvals.

Ok, the thing is, I am really against euthanasia to begin with. So I know that my proposla cannot do anything to change it.

I wrote this proposal as I would write it for reality. Perhaps I am not the greatest among proposal makers, but it is a good thing then, that none of us are in the real UN, isn't it? :)

OOC: I don't know, a few of us are well practiced at yelling and huffing and puffing, we'd certainly fit right in the real UN. And then there are a few others that are great at working behind the scenes, and I shudder to think what they could do if they were running the real UN. :)

But you're right, the style of a proposal is just a way of really structuring a discussion. A starting point, and due to many factors the proposals themselves are never going to be perfect ... if they were the real UN would be here stealing our wonderful ideas.

Would it not be strange if that were really happening? I wonder if any people in politics ever found out about this game, and attempted the delegateship in a region, only to find that his 12 year-old opponent beat him because of a cooler flag?

Haha
This thought made my dreary little day happy.
Kofi Anan, in front of his laptop on a jet to the Geneva headquarters of the UN:
"Damn! That kid beat me cause his flag had bananas makin out on it! And who'd of thought of such names for a nation?!"
*proceeds to NSUN forum, mumbling about good ideas*
Thank god for you people,
His Happiness LG

RANDOMocitia, you know?

The proposal has gained 65 approvals. I will be resubmitting after its time is up. Please tell other delegates about this proposal. I am very sure that it would pass if I could only get enough approvals.

Sorry, that was my other country.

hehe
If I were a delegate I would probably suppport this. But what in the case of:
Susie Ann has been a human vegetable (for lack of a better term [alive with no signs of inteligence, etc., often on life support]) for 5 years. Her husband wishes her to be euthanised, so he can "move on". Doctors have no chance of "reviving" her, and like most cases she will probably stay this way until natural death. She cannot move or communicate.
Can she euthanised?

Otherwise it's preety good.
Were I in the UN I'd vote for it.

But what in the case of:
Susie Ann has been a human vegetable (for lack of a better term [alive with no signs of inteligence, etc., often on life support]) for 5 years. Her husband wishes her to be euthanised, so he can "move on". Doctors have no chance of "reviving" her, and like most cases she will probably stay this way until natural death. She cannot move or communicate.
Can she euthanised?


Good question. How is it deteremined in real life? Is the family or legal gaurdian or something given authority in the matter?

It should definitely be addressed in the proposal what to do in these cases.

Thank you oh wisest of Chipmunks, may I call you Alvin?

Another question is, in the Susie Ann issue:
Susie Ann has been a human vegetable (for lack of a better term [alive with no signs of inteligence, etc., often on life support]) for 5 years. Her husband wishes her to be euthanised, so he can "move on". Doctors have no chance of "reviving" her, and like most cases she will probably stay this way until natural death. She cannot move or communicate.
Can she euthanised?

In this case, her husband wants her "dead". But what if her parents want her to "live" (sort of). What happens? Would there be a judicial descisioin to determine the outcome? Or something else? If a person cannot communicate the will to be euthanised, can someone recieve the power to have it done (note some people hve it in their living wills that they wish to be euthanised when they cannot communicate, etc.), and if someone else can who? Spouse or parents? or community? court? who?

The Republic of Larogera believes Euthanasia should be legal because every single person has their own right. If they want to die peacefully, they should be allowed. That is why it is legal in our country.

The case which Madghans presented, is covered in the "Legalise Euthanasia" resolution.

It is at 71 approvals. All those of you who have supported and approved this proposal, I thank you, and ask you to please keep telling other delegates about it. I will be resubmitting it once its time is up, so be in the lookout.

I like this proposal. I fully support it.

There. I have resubmitted the proposal.

An excellent and necessary proposal; I'll commend it to my Delegate.

An addition I'd propose, however, if this is going around a second time: a fear of voluntary euthanasia is that old and terminally sick patients will feel pressurised to ask for euthanasia because (for instance) they feel they may be a burden on their family or the health service. It might be worth adding something like 'Recommends that nations institute impartial counselling services for those considering euthanasia, and stresses that the interests of the patient are paramount.'

The Democratic Republic of Xerxes855, Regional delegate to SMEYC, approves of this proposal.

We - the regional delegate of Futura - approving it the second time, now.

We hope it is reaching quorum this time and call on all delegates to endorse it.

I'm not a delegate, but if this came to vote, I'd back it.

I disagree with euthanasia (and had I been in the UN when the resolution was narrowly passed, I would have voted against it) but now it's allowed, this is the next best thing.

It's nice to see that this proposal has so much support. I believe that if it can simply make quorom, it will pass. Only one nation here has expressed a disagreement for it. Please do not think me overbearing or anything, but everybody supporting this proposal please tell the delegates you know.

Just 70 more approvals and the proposal will be in que!