NationStates Jolt Archive

I have recently submitted a REPEAL to the UN Resolution #43: Legalise Euthanasia, which is too poorly composed to have a positive effect, and thus just restricts member nations from making their own informed decisions on the subject.

The Repeal reads:

"RECOGNIZING that euthanasia is a difficult topic, and,

RECOGNIZING that argument to legalize euthanasia may be valid, but;

DETERMINING that it should be left to a member states' discretion whether to legalize euthanasia or not.

This repeal:

EMPHASIZES a member states' right to legalize euthanasia, but REALIZES a member states' right to not to; and HONOURS decision either way.

BEARS in mind that if a member state decides to legalize euthanasia each case must be carefully analyased."

I would be most honoured if you could approve this repeal, and feel free to post here, or telegram me with any queries or comments. :)

To find the repeal, please search "euthanasia" in the list of proposals.

"DETERMINING that it should be left to a member states' discretion whether to legalize euthanasia or not."

Realize this, when you join the UN you will be told to do lots of things, some good, and some bad. If people are tired of being told what to do then thery need to rethink there UN status.

I personally would not vote for this appeal if I could.

But this repeal is more of a disposal of a poor resolution, that confuses and does little, before paving the way for a better one?

I will have to read over the euthanasia resolution, If the resolution was poorly written, then I would gladly support another better written on euthanasia. Personally, I have always felt we should have the write to die with dignity. What is the point of prolonging life when there will be little or no quality of life?

THE UN SHOULD STAY OUT OF AFFAIRS THAT INVOLVE INDIVIDUAL NATIONS AND CONCERN THEMSELVES WITH THINGS THAT AFFECT THE ENTIRE WORLD.

Read up on the NSUN, they have the right to concern themselves with national matters as well. The real UN does the samething to some degree, and if you do not like this then consider resigning, but if you can deal with it then cool. With any group you take the good with the bad.

Read up on the NSUN, they have the right to concern
themselves with national matters as well.


I wasn't saying they didn't have the right to i was saying they shouldn't.

I know there are a lot of national issues i'd like to state an opinion on but
cannot yet as there hasn't been an issue in my que for them
but that doesn't mean we should make them a UN proposal.

I have recently submitted a REPEAL to the UN Resolution #43: Legalise Euthanasia, which is too poorly composed to have a positive effect, and thus just restricts member nations from making their own informed decisions on the subject.

Since I'm in such a dandy mood, I looked it up before comming on here. Now, let me quote the parts that actually do something.

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.

That effectively states that it is forcibly legal, the situations in which it can be used, and who can make the decisions. I would have to say it has some teeth to it and does a lot of good from the situation limitations. And it's not that hard to understand, either.

The Repeal reads:

"RECOGNIZING that euthanasia is a difficult topic, and,

RECOGNIZING that argument to legalize euthanasia may be valid, but;

DETERMINING that it should be left to a member states' discretion whether to legalize euthanasia or not.

The UN's job is to crush the rights of the states. Read the FAQ.

This repeal:

EMPHASIZES a member states' right to legalize euthanasia, but REALIZES a member states' right to not to; and HONOURS decision either way.

Why should a state choose to force a person to suffer?

BEARS in mind that if a member state decides to legalize euthanasia each case must be carefully analyased."

As is true of how it is now, only they all have it legal.

I would support a repeal even though I believe there should be a UN resolution forcing nations to allow individuals to choose to die. The current legislation is full of loopholes, and also forces nations to accept euthanising by order of "those closest to" the patient, which I don't agree with unless the patient has previously agreed to pass the power of decision to a person.

There is already a domestic issue on the table for this that individual nations can vote on. Thus making the UN resolution null and void.