NationStates Jolt Archive

Repeal Resolution 43: Legalize Euthanasia

Recognizing the severity and importance of a decision to agree to euthanasia,

Also recognizing the need for proper legal process of euthanasia,

Realizing that the right to life is a fundamental human right and thus to end one's own life can only be made by the patient,

Recognizing the need for accurate information about a patient's diagnosis in order for the patient to make an informed decision,

Also recognizing that a person's experiences change their views of the world,

The United Nations deems that Resolution #43: Legalize Euthanasia be repealed for the following reasons:

1. The resolution fails to require the opinion of at least three doctors as to the diagnosis of the patient and thus there runs the risk of an inaccurate prognosis of a patient's ability to recover

2. By allowing people to sign a legal document prior to acquiring a fatal condition, it could be used while a patient is in a coma, thus taking away their right to live and not allowing the patient to invoke their decision to die. People's choices and decisions change as their experiences shape their views, thus a patient should only have the right to euthanasia if they make the decision at the time of diagnosis. Therefore any new resolution must not allow for a legal document to be signed prior to diagnosis.

3. This resolution fails to require that all patients asking for euthanasia be examined by a psychiatrist to ensure their are in sound mental health and thus can make a rationale decision to end their suffering

4. This resolution fails to require witnesses to the signing of a document that would authorize euthanasia

5. This resolution fails to require at least three doctors to provide written and signed statements of the diagnosis of the patient to be attached with the legal document

Recognizing the lack of regulations and safety standards in Resolution 43,

Realizing the right of all humans to life,

Recognizing that euthanasia should be legal,

The United Nations calls upon a new resolution to be drafted to legalize euthanasia which would contain:

1. More stringent legal framework is created so that no patient can sign a document authorizing euthanasia prior to being diagnosis with a chronic disease.

2. No loopholes for others to make the decision for the patient, even if the patient is in a coma.

3. That all patients under go psychiatric testing to ensure they are of sound mental health and can make a rationale decision

4. That the opinions of at least three doctors be sought and that these opinions are verified at a medical review board in order to prevent errors and ensure no cases of malpractice;

5. That the patient, and only the patient, will deem which doctors to receive an opinion from, the only stipulation being that the doctor must be a specialist in the medical field of the disease/condition, and/or a general practitioner. The patient also has the right to ask a general practitioner to refer them to a specialist in the medical field of the disease/condition.

Description: UN Resolution #43: Legalise Euthanasia (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Strong) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: Recognizing the severity and importance of a decision to agree to euthanasia,

Also recognizing the need for proper legal process of euthanasia,

Realizing that the right to life is a fundamental human right and thus to end one's own life can only be made by the patient,

Recognizing the need for accurate information about a patient's diagnosis in order for the patient to make an informed decision,

Also recognizing that a person's experiences change their views of the world,

The United Nations deems that Resolution #43: Legalize Euthanasia be repealled for the following reasons:

1. The resolution fails to require the opinion of at least three doctors as to the diagnosis of the patient and thus there runs the risk of an inaccurate prognosis of a patient's ability to recover

2. By allowing people to sign a legal document prior to acquiring a fatal condition, it could be used while a patient is in a coma, thus taking away their right to live and not allowing the patient to invoke their decision to die. People's choices and decisions change as their experiences shape their views, thus a patient should only have the right to euthanasia if they make the decision at the time of diagnosis. Therefore any new resolution must not allow for a legal document to be signed prior to diagnosis.

3. This resolution fails to require that all patients asking for euthanasia be examined by a psychiatrist to ensure their are in sound mental health and thus can make a rationale decision to end their suffering

4. This resolution fails to require witnesses to the signing of a document that would authorize euthanasia

5. This resolution fails to require at least three doctors to provide written and signed statements of the diagnosis of the patient to be attached with the legal document

Recognizing the lack of regulations and safety standards in Resolution 43,

Realizing the right of all humans to life,

Recognizing that euthanasia should be legal,

The United Nations calls upon a new resolution to be drafted to legalize euthanasia which would contain:

1. More stringent legal framework be created so that no patient can sign a document authorizing euthanasia prior to being diagnosis with a chronic disease.

2. No loopholes for others to make the decision for the patient, even if the patient is in a coma.

3. That all patients under go psychiatric testing to ensure they are of sound mental health and can make a rationale decision

4. That the opinions of three doctors be sought and that these opinions are verified at a medical review board in order to prevent errors and ensure no cases of malpractice


Does this extend to DNR orders? That if a patient is in a coma, and has signed a DNR, that patient has the right to decide not to be decided, even though the patient is in a coma and can not speak to this?

And why three doctors? Why not two? Why not four? Why three?

I am not sure what you mean by DNR order. I chose at least 3 because I felt 1 and 2 were too few. In dealin with such an important issue the opinion of several doctors can both help to ensure there is no mistakes, and ensure that the best and most accurate diagnosis is used. Its also a lot harder for a family who wants one of their members to sign the form to pay off 3 or more doctors.

A patient in a coma can not have euphanasia performed because this resolution repeals the concept of a legal form people can sign at a certain age. They can only sign such a form after an accurate diagnosis.

DNR = Do Not Resusitate... A legal order signed by the patient that legally prevents doctors from performing any type of resusitation procedured on the patient, in the event the patient goes into arrest. Including CPR, mouth to mouth, etc.....

I am not sure what you mean by DNR order. I chose at least 3 because I felt 1 and 2 were too few. In dealin with such an important issue the opinion of several doctors can both help to ensure there is no mistakes, and ensure that the best and most accurate diagnosis is used. Its also a lot harder for a family who wants one of their members to sign the form to pay off 3 or more doctors.

A patient in a coma can not have euphanasia performed because this resolution repeals the concept of a legal form people can sign at a certain age. They can only sign such a form after an accurate diagnosis.

First time my neice went to a hospital in a different county (from the one she was raised in) the doctor went out of his way to tell her the disease she had had since childbirth was not the one she thought it was. This was after two operations and several hundred consultations with the doctor who devliered her and his staff.

You are assuminig that none of the doctors will have a personal agenda, and that they are all medically competent to diagnose what is wrong.

It should be the patients choice, and not the doctors. (Because the doctors can be co-erced as well as bribed, and if I were on my deathbed, and my rival for president wanted power then he could easily force three doctors to agree to kill me, even if it's against my will).

And DNR was explained previously - if someone wants to not be treated then how would your proposal affect them?

Ah but recommendation 4 for a new proposal to legalize euthanasia states

4. That the opinions of three doctors be sought and that these opinions are verified at a medical review board in order to prevent errors and ensure no cases of malpractice


I can amend this recommendation further to include preventing motivations of the doctor which would be contary to the patient's best interests

Ah but recommendation 4 for a new proposal to legalize euthanasia states

4. That the opinions of three doctors be sought and that these opinions are verified at a medical review board in order to prevent errors and ensure no cases of malpractice


I can amend this recommendation further to include preventing motivations of the doctor which would be contary to the patient's best interests

Some people would argue that the patient's best interest do not involve killing themselves.

And by putting all this effort in to validating the doctors opinions, then a medical boards opinions (you are assuming there is a medical review board of course - that might not be possible), and then finding out the motives of everyone involved - is going to extend the procedure for a very, very long time. By which time the person might die anywhere, and if not they might have another six or seven months, if not years, of pain and torture just so that we can be sure they are dying for the right reasons and not the wrong ones.

Doesn't that seem a touch over the top? Not to mention cruel and inhumane?

It is several additional layers of bureaucracy. However, currently Resolution 43 has almost no checks and balances at all, it has a very limited legal framework, requires no psychiatric evaluation of the patient, requires almost no opinion of the medical profession, and allows for the family of the patient to decide if the patient should die if that patient is in a coma. I am currently working on a proposal to replace Resolution 43 with a much more detailed resolution which will require a more stringent legal framework as well as several other checks and balances in order to protect the interests of the patient. However, in order to do these things, Resolution 43 needs to be repealled and that is what this proposal is arguing for, I have simply included recommendations for a new proposal and am using these recommendations and other ideas to draft a much more comprehensive legal framework to allow euthanasia. This is simply the proposal to repeal Resolution 43, none of these recommendations will come into effect unless a new resolution is passed containing them.

This is simply the proposal to repeal Resolution 43, none of these recommendations will come into effect unless a new resolution is passed containing them.

And therein lies my problem. If #43 is repealed then euthanasia becomes illegal. And once it is repealed there is no way you can be sure another resolution will take it's place.

So I am going to hedge my bets and keep the one we have, rather than gamble on something better being round the corner.

So patients will go back to dieing the old fashioned way. Too much morphine when their live is unbearable, and nursing care only?

In certain cases we believe death is compassion.

You do not have our support.

Lady Desdemona of Merwell,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

I am not stating in any way, shape, or form that euthanasia is wrong or that we should go back to the way things were previously done. If you read the resolution carefully, I am asking for it to be repealled and replaced with a resolution that creates a proper legal framework to allow euthanasia, one that has several checks and balances in order to ensure the patient is protected for false diagnosis (whether deliberate or accidental), to ensure that the patient is in sound mental condition, to ensure that only the patient and not the family has the right to decide if they should die (and there is currently a loophole around this).

I have even included several recommendations for a better resolution to ensure that the rights of the patient are protected and that there is a sound legal framework with appropriate checks and balances. If you read my response posts I have indicated I am writing a draft resolution to replace Resolution 43.

Since we cannot ammend resolutions, the only way to change them is to repeal them and submit a better proposal. This is what I am trying to accomplish. I am not against euthanasia rights, I just want to ensure that all the proper legal framework is in place and that the universal right to life is not violated by others trying to manipulate the patient into accepting euthanasia.

I understand all that, and to some extent agree with you.

But (as far as I understand it) you can not have a resolution that repeals something and introduces a new resolution at the same time. They have to be two distinct, seperate things.

And so if #43 is repealed, there would have to be another step to introduce a new proposal and get it supported and voted on. Both of which might fail.

So I would rather hold on to what we have than risk losing it for something better.

I know it is a two step process but I passionately believe Resolution 43 is deeply flawed and dangerous and since I cannot directly amend it, I am proposing to repeal it, am suggesting recommendations for a new resolution in the resolution to appeal 43 and I am working on a proposal for a new resolution legalizing euthanasia.

And so if #43 is repealed, there would have to be another step to introduce a new proposal and get it supported and voted on. Both of which might fail.

Or the first may pass and then someone else makes it illegal.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

Would you accept the proposal if it repealled resolution 43 and passed the new proposal at the same time? Id just simply combine the two together.

To my understanding, the proposal states that three doctors are needed to confirm the patient's diagnosis and not the patient's wish to euthanize themselves, which I agree with but needs to be amended:

a) It should read at least three doctors, because a patient may want more opinions than just three.

and

b) It should be up to the patient- and solely the patient- to decide which doctors to seek opinion from.

Ah you just found an inconsistency in my resolution. In the section critical of resolution 43 it says it lacks the requirement that the opinions of at least 3 doctors be sought. In the recommendation section it says the opinions of 3 doctors must be sought. I will change the recommendation section to read at least 3.

Also I agree, I will change the resolution to state that the patient and only the patient should chose which 3 doctors to obtain opinions from, provided that those doctors are knowledgeble in the field of concern (a person who has brain cancer shouldnt be asking a cardiologist what the prognosis is).

Also I agree, I will change the resolution to state that the patient and only the patient should chose which 3 doctors to obtain opinions from, provided that those doctors are knowledgeble in the field of concern (a person who has brain cancer shouldnt be asking a cardiologist what the prognosis is).

I mostly agree- but I think any restrictions in this regard should be left out. I understand- logically- that a patient should not see a pediatrist for a heart problem, but place a restriction like "the doctor must be knowledgeable in the field of concern" is rather aribitrary. What defines "knowledgeable"? Do they need a degree? A PhD? 20 years of experience? Besides, limiting who the patient can see may mean that they won't receive consultation they can trust, and limiting it to a doctor of only a certain field disallows the opinion of a family doctor, whose opinion can also be valid.

How about specialist in that field or a general practioner

How about specialist in that field or a general practioner

My suggestion:

"specialist in that field and/or a general practioner"

You don't want to exclude someone. Also, have a provision allowing a general practitioner to refer the patient to a specialist if the patient requests it.

Would you accept the proposal if it repealled resolution 43 and passed the new proposal at the same time? Id just simply combine the two together.

I don't think you can. Perhaps a moderator could back me up on this as I am not close to being an expert, or being sure :}

Alright I made those changes. What I am going to do is finish off my resolution to replace 43 and put all of those ideas in with the changes I've made in the recommendations section and turn the recommendations section into the actual replacement proposal. This will allow this proposal to both repeal resolution 43 and implement new legalislation in order to continue to keep euthanasia legal without requiring a second vote on a second resolution.

Would you accept the proposal if it repealled resolution 43 and passed the new proposal at the same time? Id just simply combine the two together.

The NS UN can't do that. The two motions are fundamentally different, since repeals have an opposite, though milder, impact of the original resolution ... and your new proposal could have a different impact.

That said, an aggressive campaign for a replacement proposal stands a very good chance of being endorsed by UN Delegates during the debate of a repeal. UN Delegates are often very friendly and rewarding to work with.

I think that human euthanasia should be the decision for a nation's government to decide and not the UN.

If a person is terminally ill and there is no chance that they'll survive the illness, then why should they be forced to continue to live in pain and suffering? It is never in a patient's best interest to waste away, they should be allowed to die when they feel it's their time. If a doctor can determine that death would be certain anyway, then why should they be kept alive?

Alright thank you for the clarification.

I am new to the UN aspect of nation states so this will sound like a dumb question. Judging from what I've seen here, this forum area doesn't seem to gather a whole lot of attention, is there another part of the message board where I can campaign or should I campaign directly with delegates by sending them telegrams.

Usually regarded as rude to use a part of the board for something for which there is another section. In this case, campaigning for a UN proposal/repeal on another forum would be quite rude.

While the UN forum is not as busy as other sections, many of the regulars here have longstanding networks throughout the NS world, and can help promote new proposals. However, we are certainly not a voting bloc, and should never be treated as such.

Telegramming of individual delegates is usually required for a new proposal to get off the ground.

Hope that cleared things up for you.

Yep it does Enn, thank you.

Enough with using nothing but numbers for titles! DO you think any of us are either going to instantly know what you're talking about so we will want to read your thread, or that we'll want to go researching wth you're talking about???

If the patient wants more protections or wants to never allow their guardian to override their wishes, they can state so on their legal document.

Ok, just to clarify, repealing this would not make euthanasia illegal, it would simply mean the UN, at least until further legislation, didn't force nations one way or the other. Some nations would illegalise it, some wouldn't.

I feel that the current legislation in place in all UN nations is actually worse than having euthanasia illegal in some nations, simply because it is so poorly written as to make a mess of the issue. I campaigned fiercely against it at the time, and would support a repeal. However, I am reluctant to offer my support to this, since your proposed text is so firmly against the concept to living wills, which I support. Perhaps you could write a text which would be more likely to garner support from a wider range of nations. Leave the fights about living wills and the like to when we have to devise a new resolution.

Ok so which clause would you recommend I remove in order to make this more satisfactory. If it is just a recommendation clause then it really doesn't matter since they are merely recommendations for components of a new resolution.

Realizing that the right to life is a fundamental human right and thus to end one's own life can only be made by the patient,

I wouldn't be so clear-cut. For instance, this principle would condemn doctors for "pulling the plug" on a brain-dead patient who is technically still alive.

2. By allowing people to sign a legal document prior to acquiring a fatal condition, it could be used while a patient is in a coma, thus taking away their right to live and not allowing the patient to invoke their decision to die. People's choices and decisions change as their experiences shape their views, thus a patient should only have the right to euthanasia if they make the decision at the time of diagnosis. Therefore any new resolution must not allow for a legal document to be signed prior to diagnosis.

This may actually be illegal under game mechanics, because saying "any resolution must not" you are trying to legislate on what the UN can in future legislate on - that's not allowed. Plus, I disagree with this principle. By all means, remind somebody when they make a living will that they might change their mind, but if they want to do it all the same, they should be allowed - it is after all their life. Anyway, very often the whole point of euthanasia is that somebody doesn't want to live if they become unable to do anything themself, including communicate - this euthanasia would require a decision in advance

1. More stringent legal framework is created so that no patient can sign a document authorizing euthanasia prior to being diagnosis with a chronic disease.

No thanks

2. No loopholes for others to make the decision for the patient, even if the patient is in a coma.

Again, my example of the braindead patient.

3. That all patients under go psychiatric testing to ensure they are of sound mental health and can make a rationale decision

This should be "rational" - "rationale" is a noun, "rational" is an adjective.

I deliberately ensured that there would not be a loophole for a doctor to "unplug" brain dead patients. The doctor has no right to decide to end the life of that patient. Only the patient has that right. This is put in as a safety mechanismtoo. This whole resolution is about repealling legislaton to replace with one that requires a very large safety system to ensure that doctors arent coerced or paid into giving a false diagnosis and pulling the plug.

The rationale thing was a typo that I justed fixed.

Do you know what braindead means? It isn't like a coma, from which one might have a chance of recovery. According to dictionary.com:

Irreversible brain damage and loss of brain function, as evidenced by cessation of breathing and other vital reflexes, unresponsiveness to stimuli, absence of muscle activity, and a flat electroencephalogram for a specific length of time.

(my emphasis)

AFAIK braindead patients' bodies can be kept alive for some time with life support machines, but there is no hope of regaining brain function. Thus, keeping them alive once it has been determined that they are braindead simply prolongs the pain for the family, uses up valuable medical resources, and delays the time at which the patient's organs can be donated (assuming this is according to their wishes), all to no end.

a patient should only have the right to euthanasia if they make the decision at the time of diagnosis.

Ummmm.... once someone's been diagnosed as brain-dead or comatose, isn't it a bit too late for them to make that decision?

I know perfectly well what braindead means. However, does anyone but the patient have the right to determine to end that life without the patient's explicit approval?

I know perfectly well what braindead means. However, does anyone but the patient have the right to determine to end that life without the patient's explicit approval?

So you are just going to leave someone who is dead in all senses of the world lying in a hospital bed? You don't think that is cruel and unusual?

I could rework that but it would place several more layers of red tape and bureaucracy. The primary goal of this resolution is to repeal the current one and make way for a new one with proper legal framework and standards. As I have said early, the current resolution is dangerous because it has almost no checks and balances and requires limited paperwork and authenticity.

As a matter of fact, for the moment I'd like to divert everyone's attention from here to my draft on the Global Education Initiative. With the Reformed Literacy Initiative looking like it will pass, this initiative is a timely resolution which should put most of the education discussions to rest. I will be focusing on passing the GEI and repealling resolution 18. Then I will be reforming this resolution some more.

I could rework that but it would place several more layers of red tape and bureaucracy. The primary goal of this resolution is to repeal the current one and make way for a new one with proper legal framework and standards.

So leave out this stuff, which will only serve to split the pro-repeal camp. Don't be so specific about what you want to see replace it, simply suggest that better-written, better-thought-through proposals to re-legalise euthanasia could be re-submitted later.

Alright fair enough, Ill start to rework this proposal and edit it in the next day or so. While I do, (I must sound like a broken record) I 'd like to direct you to the Global Education Initiative and the Repeal of Resolution 18.

Which is resolution 18?

The one which requires all nations to research and build Hydrogen Powered Cars.

I see...now this is getting a little sticky. Myopia is right, a braindead patient has no way to decide if they want to end their lives even though being braindead would be a strong case for one to end their life (as it is a lot of suffering). However, if you put in a provision stating that, in cases of a patient going braindead (which can happen right after a car accident, meaning the patient would not have the time to decide beforehand if they want euthanasia), a doctor can pull the plug then you might have doctors incorrectly (either willingly or not) pulling the plug when the patient could survive.

Hmmnnn...

This may actually be illegal under game mechanics, because saying "any resolution must not" you are trying to legislate on what the UN can in future legislate on - that's not allowed.

Consider that if we pass a resolution that says, "All citizens under the age of 16 are entitled to a free education", isn't that (under the UN no resolution may contradict another resolution rule) also saying, "No future resolution shall restrict the entitlement to a free education of citizens under the age of 16"?

That said ... it isn't a direct arguement. I think the "any resolution must not" bit is implied and can be left out of the resolution.

Ya I completely agree Mikitivity. Look at resolution 3 and 28 for example. 3 says free education for everyone under 16, 28 for everyone under 18. I will remove the must not from mine though.

Consider that if we pass a resolution that says, "All citizens under the age of 16 are entitled to a free education", isn't that (under the UN no resolution may contradict another resolution rule) also saying, "No future resolution shall restrict the entitlement to a free education of citizens under the age of 16"?

This is a difficult issue, true, but I'm going on Sophista's "Nation States United Nations Policymaking" in the stickied "United Nations Resolution Writing Guide" thread:

Restricting Future Proposals:
It is illegal for the United Nations to prohibit itself from performing an action in the future. To do so would require reprogramming the game so certain proposal categories or specific clauses aren’t allowed, a mechanics issue.

Greetings,

Basically, it all comes down to this:

a) you have a right to live

b) you have a duty to live

If you consider it to be a right, then euthanasia is simply giving up that right and giving someone the chance to kill you.

If you consider it to be a duty, then euthanasia is plainly ilegitimate, as the person must live and cannot relinquish this.

Views on this subject depend on how you value life (and even where you find the fundamental rights of Man find their legitimacy).

Personally, I consider that a person should live for as long as possible, even if in pain. It would be foolish of me, though, to believe everyone values his or her own life as I value mine.

A person has right to live, and may therefore decide to give it up. This may lead to suicide, where there is no real judicial problem, or to euthanasia, which is assisted suicide, and I find both of these solutions legitimate.

I stress the fact that I believe euthanasia should be discouraged and only become possible as a last resort.

The person who is to assist in the killing is of course entitled to object to doing so. Noone should be forced to kill someone else, even when asked to do it.

Furthermore, when the person who is supposed to be killed is in a coma, and has therefore not expressed his opinion directly, the intentions of the various people who recomend "pulling the plug" should be thoroughly scrutinized.

To sum it all up, euthanasia is a valid solution to a problem which aflicts many a person in the world.

The government of Telidia echoes many of the sentiments from our learned colleague _Myopia_ and we await the re-drafted appeal document with interest. We agree completely that the current legislation is completely inappropriate to deal with this complex issue and as such do warrant an appeal. In addition the current legislation also has no specific measures rendering it completely useless, mostly because the paragraph ‘legalising’ euthanasia is a suggestion only. I quote for reference:

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…

The rest of the document while heart warming is nothing short of one nation’s opinion, which means nothing in law. I therefore also urge member states that should this resolution be repealed, we write a resolution that will be free of opinion, with active measures, which actually mean something.

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
Office of UN Relations, Dept for Foreign Affairs
HM Government of Telidia.

Greetings,

Basically, it all comes down to this:

a) you have a right to live

b) you have a duty to live



Why does anyone have a duty to live?

And if you have the right to live, then you also have a right to chose not to live. Otherwise it's not a right.

2. By allowing people to sign a legal document prior to acquiring a fatal condition, it could be used while a patient is in a coma, thus taking away their right to live and not allowing the patient to invoke their decision to die. People's choices and decisions change as their experiences shape their views, thus a patient should only have the right to euthanasia if they make the decision at the time of diagnosis. Therefore any new resolution must not allow for a legal document to be signed prior to diagnosis.



Apologies if this has been commented on already I do not have much time to be able to read the entire thread at this time. I would just like to point out that fear affects a lot of people and a decision "to sign a legal document prior to acquiring a fatal condition" in some cases would be reversed by some patients. And if, as you suggest, the patient is incapable of confirming their wishes due to being unconcious or unable to communicate in some other way, you would have no way of being able to tell whether this sort of decision is still relevant in the patients own mind.

Apologies if this has been commented on already I do not have much time to be able to read the entire thread at this time. I would just like to point out that fear affects a lot of people and a decision "to sign a legal document prior to acquiring a fatal condition" in some cases would be reversed by some patients. And if, as you suggest, the patient is incapable of confirming their wishes due to being unconcious or unable to communicate in some other way, you would have no way of being able to tell whether this sort of decision is still relevant in the patients own mind.

The author you quoted is against allowing people to sign such documents. I however am in favour. It's their life, and if they're reminded that they might change their mind, but still want to do it, who are you or I or the state to tell them they can't?

Ya I completely agree Mikitivity. Look at resolution 3 and 28 for example. 3 says free education for everyone under 16, 28 for everyone under 18. I will remove the must not from mine though.
Sorry, your use of those two as an example is moot, as the rules that are now used did not exist at the time these two were passed. In fact, paired resolutions like this and the two RBH proposals were the reason such rules were implemented. Just a bit of a history lesson.

Greetings,

It may not have become clear from my previous post, but what I meant to say was this:

You either believe:

a) a person has a duty to live

b) a person has a right to live

I'm sorry if this was not clear.

I further re-state that I believe in the second option, as may be inferred from reading the second part of my previous post.