NationStates Jolt Archive

Category Moral Decency
Strength Strong

The General Assembly,

CONSIDERING THAT the loss of innocent life caused to be very severe,

DEEPLY DISTURBED by the response of the United Nations on the Issue of Euthanasia, it is suggested that the resolution be repealed,

FULLY AWARE that there are some cases in which sufferers of terminal illness reach a stage at which life is not worth living,

NOTING the situations in which it has been abused by the clinically insane for the purpose of committing murder on innocent individuals,

RECOGNISING that the UN does not restrict it’s membership according to government type,

CONCLUDING the presence of totalitarian regimes which might take advantage of the resolution,

EMPHASISING that the lives of those who do not wish to die are paramount and must be placed above those whose lives will be swiftly ended anyway,

DEEPLY REGRETTING that the abuse of the powers is too great for its continued existence.

URGES the Assembly to repeal the “Legalize Euthanasia” resolution;

TRUSTS that the assembly will have the balance of mind to realize the mortal danger to innocent people posed by the current resolution.

(With Input from PowerHungry Chipmunks)

Further Comments Welcome

NOTING that the NSUN don't have a Charter AFAIK

APPROVING of the rest of this proposal.

EDITING the proposal accordingly.

EDITING the resolution accordingly.

OOC: I like you! You understood that I was being serious and humorous at the same time. :)

I'm going to number your clauses for ease of reference. I really don't think it should be submitted this way (except for the typical numbering of action clauses), I'm just trying to keep track.


1) GUIDED by the principles enshrined in the Charter of the N.S.U.N


I agree with Texan Hotrodders here: I'm not sure where the NSUN Charter is coming from.


2) DEEPLY DISTURBED by the response of the United Nations on the Issue of Euthanasia, it is suggested that the resolution be repealed.

3) FULLY AWARE that there are some cases in which sufferers of terminal illness reach a stage at which life is not worth living,

I like that you're setting your action clauses up, and number 3 does very well, but I think number 2 needs to be taken out. Your claim that legalize euthanasia needs to be repealed probably ought not be introduced this early. If you get rid of that clause I think the proposal will read a little clearer.


4) DEEPLY REGRETTING that the abuse of the powers is too great for its continued existence.

5) HAVING EXAMINED the situations in which it has been abused by the clinically insane for the purpose of committing murder on innocent individuals.

6) NOTING FURTHER that the abuse of this legality will eventually fall to the hands of corrupt dictators.


I think it's good that you're approaching this from multiple angles. There are lots of reasons to want a repeal of a resolution, and a well-justified repeal will have many reasons for it. However, I think the order here's a little skewed. I believe number 4 here is just too assertive. You haven't provided your argument yet, if you make a statement such as this, you need to do it after you've justified it. I also think the NOTING FURTHER clause (number 6) should only be used directly after a NOTING clause--which I think would fit fairly well for number 5 there. You might consider changing those so their NOTING and NOTING FURTHER.

7) HAVING CONSIDERED the implications of this, that the loss of innocent life could become very severe.

8) EMPHASISING that the lives of those who do not wish to die are paramount and must be placed above those whose lives will be swiftly ended anyway.

Number 7 belongs earlier. You need to establish ethos, or the rhetorical appeal to your audiences morals, early so they'll listen to your logos, or rhetorical appeal to logic, later (in number 8).

So, I'd say, put number 7 at the very beginning rephrased as something like "CONSIDERING the loss of innocent life to be very severe".

Revised according to my suggestions so far, the beginning of the resolution will look something like this:
The General Assembly,

[clause deleted]

CONSIDERING the loss of innocent life to be very severe.
[re-worded]

FULLY AWARE that there are some cases in which sufferers of terminal illness reach a stage at which life is not worth living,

NOTING situations in which it has been abused by the clinically insane for the purpose of committing murder on innocent individuals. [first word changed]

NOTING FURTHER that the abuse of this legality will eventually fall to the hands of corrupt dictators.

EMPHASISING that the lives of those who do not wish to die are paramount and must be placed above those whose lives will be swiftly ended anyway.

DEEPLY REGRETTING that the abuse of the powers is too great for its continued existence. [moved further down]

URGES...


Also, I think you need to emphasize your strongest point a bit more. I think this point is that dictators may abuse this power. I'm not sure about the insane people committing murder (I'm not sure what you're getting at, or if it's incredibly valid). To increase the emphasis on dictators, you could include a clause about "RECOGNIZING that the UN does not restrict its membership according to governemnt type", and "CONCLUDING the presence of totalitarian regimes among UN members", or somesuch. Just think about how to convince people who believe in euthanasia that it could possibly be abused.

Lastly, you need commas after each line except for the last two. At the end of URGES you need a semi-colon, and at the very end, a period.

By all means, feel free to include or not include any of these suggestions. I like what you've done, and I think it'll be a good proposal. Before you submit I have some pointers which really helped me in the repeal of "legalized prostitution".

I would support a repeal of this appallingly poorly written resolution. Hopefully such a repeal would be followed by a resolution guaranteeing the rights of individuals to make their own personal choices to die - but not to decide that other incapacitated people need euthanising.

I would support a repeal of this appallingly poorly written resolution. Hopefully such a repeal would be followed by a resolution guaranteeing the rights of individuals to make their own personal choices to die - but not to decide that other incapacitated people need euthanising.

I too will support this repeal. There are numerous arguments for criminalizing euthanasia.

I would support the repeal of the legalization of euthaniasia, but would not subsequently vote for one that criminalizes it. My constituents hold the right to euthanize those in pain very close to them. It is not something taken lightly, however, and the risks outweigh the benefit in our view.

Perhaps the best path would be for the United Nations to allow for countries to take their own route on this deeply personal matter, and refuse to allow the UN to expand its powers beyond the monstrous oversight it already posesses.

HAVING EXAMINED the situations in which it has been abused by the clinically insane for the purpose of committing murder on innocent individuals.

May I ask where you got this from? I know of no major problems having to do with what you say here. Is this just a Communist Collectives problem, or are you quoting RL (which by the way is illegal)?

Aside from that, well written. Nargopia supports the revised inoperative clauses, and would actually vote pro even if it wasn't changed. But change it anyway, just so it looks better. We need to bring some shred of dignity back to UN resolutions.

I have revised the proposals. If I missed anything, point it out, it is late. It was not intentional.

Any further comments?

I support the current proposal, and will bring it to the attention of my UN Delegate should you submit it.

I would support a repeal of this appallingly poorly written resolution. Hopefully such a repeal would be followed by a resolution guaranteeing the rights of individuals to make their own personal choices to die - but not to decide that other incapacitated people need euthanising.

But what if it comes down to the choice of the person who is not being assisted? Say (Lords forbid) I have told my husband of my wishes in the case of accident, but only my husband (because as President it is not something that should be public knowledge) (or because it would scare my children, should I have any). Then I am in a horriffic accident that leaves me unable to confirm this. My husband would then have to make the decision - deciding that I am to be assisted in my choice.

The proposal has to deal with that, otherwise it will be pointless.

I'd have to think about it. At first thought, I support euthanasia, but I've never really thought about it before.

I'd have to think about it. At first thought, I support euthanasia, but I've never really thought about it before.
ouch.

Remember, this proposal is suggested as emergency legislation to save lives. Once it has been introduced, another member can suggest a new resolution to re-introduce a limited form of Euthanasia, with restrictions (Although I cannot see how these restrictions would be policed)

Remember, this proposal is suggested as emergency legislation to save lives. Once it has been introduced, another member can suggest a new resolution to re-introduce a limited form of Euthanasia, with restrictions (Although I cannot see how these restrictions would be policed)
emergency legislation?

are you concerned about someone in particular being euthanized?

Hmm, judging by the text of "Legalize Euthanasia", I can't quite see where these alleged abuses of human rights are.


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.

I do not see quite where that leaves room for abuses.

May I most humbly request an explanation?

The Nazis were good at Euthanasia! Are you trying to compete with that!? :headbang:

You have to understand that this particular word is a horrific symbol in germany.

To me as a german (who is having a smaller , mentally-retarded sister) it is definetely a no-go-area. I absolutely disagree. Who will be the one who's deciding whether or not Euthanasia will happen in a certain situation?

I don't need a believe in s.th. like "god" to disagree - it's just inhumane. The current law-setting (in germany, and - with regards to the death sentence in the us - other countries) is fairly enough, to prevent crimes of such a sort.

I would AGREE with a self chosen death (won't say suicide), if a person is suffering from a certain, approved painful illness - with no chances to recover.

Remember, this proposal is suggested as emergency legislation to save lives. Once it has been introduced, another member can suggest a new resolution to re-introduce a limited form of Euthanasia, with restrictions (Although I cannot see how these restrictions would be policed)

I don't know if that's legal. Isn't that like an amendment?

I don't know if that's legal. Isn't that like an amendment?
Yes it's legal.

The Nazis were good at Euthanasia! Are you trying to compete with that!? :headbang:

You have to understand that this particular word is a horrific symbol in germany.

To me as a german (who is having a smaller , mentally-retarded sister) it is definetely a no-go-area. I absolutely disagree. Who will be the one who's deciding whether or not Euthanasia will happen in a certain situation?

I don't need a believe in s.th. like "god" to disagree - it's just inhumane. The current law-setting (in germany, and - with regards to the death sentence in the us - other countries) is fairly enough, to prevent crimes of such a sort.

I would AGREE with a self chosen death (won't say suicide), if a person is suffering from a certain, approved painful illness - with no chances to recover.

Isn't what you're arguing for exactly what is proposed in this resolution?

The resolution has been submitted. Hopefully you will soon have the opportunity to make your opinions felt.

The Nazis were good at Euthanasia! Are you trying to compete with that!? :headbang:

You have to understand that this particular word is a horrific symbol in germany.

To me as a german (who is having a smaller , mentally-retarded sister) it is definetely a no-go-area. I absolutely disagree. Who will be the one who's deciding whether or not Euthanasia will happen in a certain situation?

I don't need a believe in s.th. like "god" to disagree - it's just inhumane. The current law-setting (in germany, and - with regards to the death sentence in the us - other countries) is fairly enough, to prevent crimes of such a sort.

I would AGREE with a self chosen death (won't say suicide), if a person is suffering from a certain, approved painful illness - with no chances to recover.
"Self chosen death" is what euthanasia is, at least under the current resolution. Have you read "Legalize Euthanasia" yet?

Also, the atrocities committed by the Nazis weren't euthanasia by the definition we seem to be using, they were cold-blooded murder.

Neo-Anarchists I am pleased to inform you that you are totally and utterly wrong. The Nazis imposed compulsory Euthanasisa organisations, such as that to destroy severely disabled children. This, of course is unacceptable, and is the kind of behaviour this resolution aims to end.

Also, the resolution is submitted and available for you to give your approval. Please do so forthwith so that this proposal can get to the floor.

Please use this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=392799) thread.

But what if it comes down to the choice of the person who is not being assisted? Say (Lords forbid) I have told my husband of my wishes in the case of accident, but only my husband (because as President it is not something that should be public knowledge) (or because it would scare my children, should I have any). Then I am in a horriffic accident that leaves me unable to confirm this. My husband would then have to make the decision - deciding that I am to be assisted in my choice.

The proposal has to deal with that, otherwise it will be pointless.

I would offer you the right to create a living will detailing your wishes. This could include "I do not wish to live if x or y happens" and/or "If a or b happens, I want the decision passed to person c". But I don't think anyone should have the right to choose on behalf of a patient unless the patient has agreed beforehand.

Neo-Anarchists I am pleased to inform you that you are totally and utterly wrong. The Nazis imposed compulsory Euthanasisa organisations, such as that to destroy severely disabled children. This, of course is unacceptable, and is the kind of behaviour this resolution aims to end.
The euthanasia permitted in "Legalize Euthanasia" does not seem to fit that. What the Nazis did, they *called* euthanasia, but it doesn't seem to fit in under the definition provided in the resolution. I still cannot see where it is left open in "Legalize Euthanasia" for an abomination such as that to happen.

Anyway, on to the new topic...