NationStates Jolt Archive

Greetings,

I am asking for your support in the repealing of a UN resolution. The Legalisation of Euthanasia by the floor of the UN was passed by an extremely thin majority, this shows the deep split in member states on this issue.

This should not be decided by the UN, but by member states.

Please Support the Repealing of this Resolution

Many Thanks

Democratic Republic of Mildertia

Greetings,

I am asking for your support in the repealing of a UN resolution. The Legalisation of Euthanasia by the floor of the UN was passed by an extremely thin majority, this shows the deep split in member states on this issue.

This should not be decided by the UN, but by member states.

Please Support the Repealing of this Resolution

Many Thanks

Democratic Republic of Mildertia

Do you have a copy of the repeal to post here, so that we can see your reasons for wanting to?

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

Argument: This resolution is open to widespread abuse by citzens of members states, it does not clearly set out parameters for the use of this practice, leaving law enforcements agencies in member states in a difficult position.

In addition to this, Suicide is still an offence, and this resolution undermines that law.

Put simply, this resolution is vague in it's intentions and should be repealed by the floor of the UN. It will then be up to delegates whether to draft a new resolution on the same topic.

The topic of Euthanasia is not one that should be decided and enforced by a majority 779 votes [hardly a landslide]. If the resolution only passed by a fraction of the votes this shows the deep split in member nations.

Leave this one up to national Governments

-------------Democratic Republic of Mildertia

I would support a repeal on the grounds that legalising voluntary euthanasia is sensible, but the current legislation is of dangerously poor quality. However, I don't support this repeal because I don't think that governments should be allowed to remove their citizens' rights to make their own choices about death.

Also, in many nations suicide is not a criminal offence, including _Myopia_ (and in RL, I know the UK hasn't treated it as one since 1961).

I support the repeal too. Many members of the 10000 Islands felt this too was a national, not international, matter.

While it's not enough to make the proposal illegal, I'd like to go on record saying that I really hate when repeals mention the number of votes.

I don't hate it, but it does serve to undermine the repeal attempt.

I dont really agree that it is taken as AN offence to suicide. The life is ours, when someone got a last stage cancer and wishes to die, it is cruel disallowing him/her not to suicide when he/she wishes to. This is something like, dying is better than being tortured.

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

Argument: This resolution is open to widespread abuse by citzens of members states, it does not clearly set out parameters for the use of this practice, leaving law enforcements agencies in member states in a difficult position.


No, it gives my nation the right to make laws to define the practice further. We have to have it, but it doesn't say how.



In addition to this, Suicide is still an offence, and this resolution undermines that law.

It is? Not in Vastiva.



Put simply, this resolution is vague in it's intentions and should be repealed by the floor of the UN. It will then be up to delegates whether to draft a new resolution on the same topic.

Its intentions are not vague. How it fulfilled them is, but I'd rather be allowed to translate.



The topic of Euthanasia is not one that should be decided and enforced by a majority 779 votes [hardly a landslide]. If the resolution only passed by a fraction of the votes this shows the deep split in member nations.


This sort of arguement automatically sours me on any repeal. Numbers then are not relevant now.



Leave this one up to national Governments

-------------Democratic Republic of Mildertia

As we read it, they did.

Repeal not supported.

I support a repeal of the UN Resolution #43, Legalization of Euthanasia, because it was passed by a very very thin margin. If you believe that your nation should support Euthanasia, so be it. However, as this is a very devided topic, the decision should be made by every nation for themselves. Thus, the topic should be repealed.

- President Tainted B. Lu

The Nomadic Peoples of Morettistan

To clarify, it seems my wording has been misunderstood. The number of votes margin was not a reason to repeal the resolution, of course that would be ludicrous, but I wish people would take the time to actually read what the repeal says.

The thrust of the argument is that this issue should not be dictated by the UN unilaterally, the UN was primarily an organisation set up to further world peace and security, over time this has developed into a much larger role, but the UN should not, and was not designed to be a World Parliament, the UN should have the role of stating it's aims and intentions, but it should not be deciding policy issues that parties in my democratic nation will be campaigning on.

The UN seems to have grown beyond it's mandate in passing resolutions such as this, that is what I have a problem with.

The statement about the vote margin has been completely de-contextualised, as it's original intention was to motivate people who do not support the legislation to support my repeal, I was not questioning the authority of the legislation itself because whether a resolution is passed by 1 vote or 1 million, it is still binding in law

Thank you for reading, I hope I have clarified my repeal

Democratic Republic of Mildertia

To clarify, it seems my wording has been misunderstood. The number of votes margin was not a reason to repeal the resolution, of course that would be ludicrous, but I wish people would take the time to actually read what the repeal says.

The thrust of the argument is that this issue should not be dictated by the UN unilaterally, the UN was primarily an organisation set up to further world peace and security, over time this has developed into a much larger role, but the UN should not, and was not designed to be a World Parliament, the UN should have the role of stating it's aims and intentions, but it should not be deciding policy issues that parties in my democratic nation will be campaigning on.

The UN seems to have grown beyond it's mandate in passing resolutions such as this, that is what I have a problem with.

The statement about the vote margin has been completely de-contextualised, as it's original intention was to motivate people who do not support the legislation to support my repeal, I was not questioning the authority of the legislation itself because whether a resolution is passed by 1 vote or 1 million, it is still binding in law

Thank you for reading, I hope I have clarified my repeal

Democratic Republic of Mildertia

But despite the fact you believe the UN has grown beyond it's mandate, a large number of people believe that this was fully within the UN's mandate.

Just saying :}