NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok, so I proposed that we repeal the resolution that legalizes euthanasia because it's a violation of national sovriegnty. So go the UN page and support my proposal!

Your National Sovereignty argument will fall on deaf ears if that's all you've got. Please go read this thread (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=381983) and this one too (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=382003). You're making fans of sovereignty 'cry like little girls' with this one.

All right... but the UN really isn't allowed to do stuff like this. It's for nations to make up their own minds.

Ok, so I proposed that we repeal the resolution that legalizes euthanasia because it's a violation of national sovriegnty. So go the UN page and support my proposal!

No, because repealing it is an infringement of my national sovereignty....

All right... but the UN really isn't allowed to do stuff like this. It's for nations to make up their own minds.

Who said the UN isn't allowed to do this... It was voted on, and a majority of the member nations decided that it was allowed...

The real UN can't make laws that interfere with national sovriegnty. And I think there are a couple of NationStates resolutions that protect nations sovriegnty that have been passed as well.

The real UN can't make laws that interfere with national sovriegnty. And I think there are a couple of NationStates resolutions that protect nations sovriegnty that have been passed as well.

This is not the "real life UN", this is the NationStates UN, completely different concepts... This one most certainly has the capability to pass resolutions to directly invalidate your national sovereignty...

Ok, but in any case I think there is a NationStates resolution pretecting national sovreignty which this resolution violates.

Ok, but in any case I think there is a NationStates resolution pretecting national sovreignty which this resolution violates.

There is no resolution protecting national sovereignty to the extreme you assume... Rights and Duties, does protect national sovereignty to the extend of where international law has spoken... Where UN legislation speaks; you have no rights of sovereignty, and are subject to that order.

"National Sovereignty" by itself is not a reason... It must be backed by actual reasons why the individual state would rule over this issue better. You have supplied no such argument; but instead relied upon the fallacious idea, that the UN has limits to what it can rule over by resolution vote. The NSUN has no inherant limit.

Hense why your argument that it should be repealed because it "violates [your] national sovereignty" is as invalid as my comical statement that the repeal of it would "violate [my] national sovereignty"...

Ok, but in any case I think there is a NationStates resolution pretecting national sovreignty which this resolution violates.
In the very second post of this topic, I provided links to two current threads discussing this very issue in great detail. All your questions are answered there. Do us all a favor and go read them, please ...


By the way, I'm the author of the resolution you think you're quoting. I think I can safely say with some authority that you have it totally wrong.

No, because repealing it is an infringement of my national sovereignty....
How does repealing this resolution violate your national sovereignty? Last time I checked repealing the resolution does not ban euthanasia.

All right... but the UN really isn't allowed to do stuff like this. It's for nations to make up their own minds.

*adds yet another name to the list of "People Who Did Not Read The FAQ Before Joining The UN"*

Chapter six.

I would be in favour of a repeal, but only so that a better pro-euthanasia rights resolution could be passed.

How about suggested evidence (or evidence, if you can prove it) that people have been murdered for money by their relatives? Or that there has been evidence that doctors have been preasured in to actions by people who did not want to deal with someone who was terminally ill?

That would be potential grounds for a resolution. But it would almost certainly have to be proven before it can be accepted by the majority of the member nations .

That's another point- enforcing legalized euthanisia could lead to corruption or mistakes in the system, which could put unwilling people to death.

It's the choice of the person getting it or, if they are incapable of making the choice, the family, guardians, or whoever has power of attorney. Simple solution easily dealt with by passing one single law in your nation.

But even if someone has power of attorney, does that mean they should be able to decide if the person lives or dies?

Exactly. While I believe strongly that individuals should have the choice for their lives to end, I find it hard to accept giving another individual the right to make that decision for them.

But even if someone has power of attorney, does that mean they should be able to decide if the person lives or dies?

They make the decision whether it is wise for the person to continue in their life or not. It depends on several factors. Personally, I require evidence they would be suffering or put into a situation where they are effectively dead anyway (such as brain trauma resulting in the person being a mammalian vegetable).

Exactly. While I believe strongly that individuals should have the choice for their lives to end, I find it hard to accept giving another individual the right to make that decision for them.
If the person gets into a state where the can not decide we don't really consider them a sentient person so we let others make the decision for them based (hopefully) on what they would have wanted.

Of course not everyone thinks like that.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

That's another point- enforcing legalized euthanisia could lead to corruption or mistakes in the system, which could put unwilling people to death.
Is that not murder? Is murder not punishable by law in your country?

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World