NationStates Jolt Archive

Euthanasia is an irresponsible way to handle the "genocide" of helpless beings. Not all persons who are terminally ill will wish to die. "Pulling the plug" (I suppose that is the correct term) on them would be committing autrocities and thus violating basic human rights laws and regulations that were once passed by this organization. What the Dominion of Castingsborough is attempting to understand is how this promotes "Human Rights" when in essence it takes the right away from the human. Our State will not be under the subjection of this resolution, that is why the State is requesting a repeal for the legalization of Euthanasia. Not only is it ridiculously absurd, but it violates the Basic Bill of Rights that was once implemented by this United Nations body.

Legalise Euthanasia
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Grande

Description: A child was sat at his mother's bedside when she was unable to breathe for herself and was under constant care. All the child knew was that the dignity of this once strong woman was slowly being drained away, hour by hour, day by day. The child's mother once told him that if she were ever in this situation, that he should do the right thing and put her out of her misery. He decided that he would obey his mother's wishes, and was jailed for 'killing' his mother.

I ask you where is the justice in this? That someone has no right to end suffering?

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

In the case of a freak situation in which a person has no serious illness or is over a certain age, if the person cannot make the decision themselves it would be made by those closest to them on the basis of professional medical advice.
Also if the patient is in a coma, 5-10 years should be waited until those closest to them make a decision.

The act also must be carried out in the most painless way possible.

Why should carers use up time on those certain to die, when this time could be spent with those with a chance of life?

And for those using religion as a barrier, don't you think that whoever you believe in would rather see the person happy in paradise, rather than suffering?

Please think about this proposal carefully, and consider which path you would take if you were ever to be in this situation (God forbid)?


Votes For: 10,810
Votes Against: 10,031

Implemented: Fri Jan 16 2004

The reason we do not repeal this resolution is because we do not have sufficiency to do so.

With the ability to repeal resolutions now coded into the game, the Federated States of Sophista will support the repeal of any standing United Nations resolution that legislates on a moral issue. This is included in that list.

Thank you for your cooperation Ambassador to the UN from Sophista.

_Myopia_ does not support a full repeal, as we believe that adults should be able to make their own decisions to die. However, we are in favour of a partial repeal, which would clean up the confusions and loopholes in the original, and which would ensure that although adults retain the right to request death, nations may make their own decisions regarding the legality of friends/relatives making the decision to "pull the plug". In our view, this solution offers personal sovereignty for individuals, whilst offering national sovereignty to governments on what we view as a more morally ambiguous issue.

Such a partial repeal was written by at the time of the passing of the original by this government, and will soon be brought before this body as a draft proposal.

It should not be the place of the government to decide whether or not it is a "morally ambiguous" issue. This issue purely lies in the hands of the citizen of the country that is terminally ill. The Government of the Dominion of Castingsborough outright refuses the acceptance of a partial repeal for it requests a complete repeal of this moral autrocity.

Full repeal doesn't reverse the rights and ban the practice, it just puts it back to a state where governments can choose. To reverse, I think you have to repeal and then have another proposal pass to ban it.

The Government does not wish to "ban" Euthanasia, it just wishes to provide a new standing to where members of the UN are free to legislate how they wish instead of having to always confer with a body of nations that is willing to completely and utterly destroy the well being of their citizens for the benefit of their own sadistic policies. The Government does not hold this in relation to _Myopia_, for your reference.

Ok, I think there's a little confusion here. As I see it, there are two types of euthanasia - one I'll call "voluntary", where the patient either expresses his/her immediate wish to die, or has previously signed a legal document saying that in certain specified conditions (e.g. coma) s/he wishes to be euthanised or to pass the decision on to another adult; and one I'll call "involuntary", where the patient has not made such a legal document, and is unable to express his/her current wishes (e.g. coma), and relatives or perhaps close friends choose to request euthanasia for that individual.

The current legislation (rather messily) forces governments to legalise both.

I wish the UN to keep enforcing the legality of voluntary euthanasia, and to allow national governments to make their own decisions about involuntary euthanasia, and to do both these things in a neater, more watertight resolution.

So that I might better understand your position, can you explain it in these terms, or explain why your position doesn't fit into the terms I have explained?

I am for the repeal of this resolution.

Since the Government of the Dominion of Castingsborough is a highly supportive government of the people's choice, the Government does not reserve the right to legislate anything that even deals with Euthanasia due to our current human rights laws. I, as a member of Parliament, am not permitted to pass or even write a regulated law that even contradicts the civil liberties of our citizens.

To better explain my position, the Government of the Dominion of Castingsborough does not want any legislation that involves Euthanasia to be passed due to the fact that it violates the rights of a human being for the Government to control whether or not someone is involuntarily "murdered" by the officiating powers of a State, Province, or National level of Government.

Euthanasia is a humane way to end the life of a terminally ill person, if they wish to die then they should have that right. If this process was used to end the life of someone who had an illness which could be given treatment to, then I would support a repeal, but since this isn't the way it is, I do not believe a repeal is neccessary.

Sorry to hear that a repeal will not be given by your State. Euthanasia also involves the murder of persons with mental illnesses.

Let it be known to the General Assembly and all who are involved in the United Nations that the Dominion of Castingsborough has officially denounced Resolution #43 in a recent enactment of Parliament.


The Prohibition of Euthanasia Act
23 September 2004

SIGNED WHEREBY:

In the Presence of Parliament

-And-

His Right Honourable, Lord William Andrew Matthew Markle, MP, Minister Premier of the State, Governor General of the Province of Castingsborough, Minister of the Interior for the State of New Providence, and Deputy Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the Dominion of Castingsborough

-And-

Her Right Honourable, Lady Mona Charlotte Wahl Engeskaug, MP, State Governess, Governess General of the Government Provincial State of the Governesses, Minister of Defence for the Ministry of Defence of the State of New Providence, and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the Dominion of Castingsborough


Introductory Statements of this Act of Parliament:

WHEREAS the State of the Dominion of Castingsborough, located in the region of New Providence has come to the agreement amongst the bicameral Parliament of the Dominion that it should prohibit any action of Euthanasia within the State. This is in a direct action of the resolution passed by the United Nations, Resolution #43 of the legalisation of the actions of the State involving Euthanasia. Prohibition of Euthanasia will be effective 24 September 2004 by the Parliament's direct order of the State.


Chapter I: State Responsibilities

Section I: Responsibilities of the State to Prohibit the Actions of Euthanasia

Article I: Definitions of the State's Actions

(1) The State defines Euthanasia as, "An act committed by an individual for the removal of a human life that is either terminally ill or mentally challenged."
(2) The State defines prohibition as, "The cease of actions committed by individuals."
(3) The State defines persons who commit Euthanasia as, "Enemies of the State's Law."

Article II: Prohibition of the Actions of Euthanasia

(1) The State of the Dominion of Castingsborough prohibits the action of Euthanasia of any kind.
(2) The State of the Dominion of Castingsborough neither condones nor condemns actions of the past to any extent prior to this lawmaking decision from Parliament.

Article III: State Consequences

(1) The State of the Dominion of Castingsborough shall not be held accountable for any hospitals or other organizations that commit the illegal action of Euthanasia within our borders.
(2) The State of the Dominion of Castingsborough shall arrest and convict anyone who has disturbed the actions of the State to prohibit Euthanasia.

Section II: Punishment

Article IV: Definitions of the State's Actions

(1) The State defines punishment as, "The consequences of actions committed by those who are claimed as 'Enemies of the State's Law'."
(2) The State defines consequences as, "The result of an action committed by those who are claimed as 'Enemies of the State's Law'."

Article V: Consequences of Breachment of the Prohibition of Euthanasia

(1) The State and any other agency, ministry or government body with adequate powers of enforcement may convict a citizen of the State for the crime of Committing Euthanasia.
(2) The punishment within will be a minimum of 27 years in a Dominion State Penitentuary and maximum of life in a Dominion State Penitentuary.

The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites supports this effort to repeal this resolution.

On reflection my government would have to support it as well. While I support the idea of "self-euthanasia" (ie that a person can chose to die, and have assistance with it) I strongly disagree with the right of someone else making that choice for the person, as that is open to abuses of epic proportions. I also disagree with the initial comparrison of euthanasia to genocide, and the claim that it is used to murder mentally ill people.

I would go along with _Myopia_ in suggesting a partial repeal.

It seems that a partial repeal is not possible with the current mechanism. Therefore, what I propose to do is to support a full repeal and then submit a proposal to force the legalisation of voluntary euthanasia - I have one up my sleeve, written around the time of the original's passing (it probably does need improvement).