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DISTURBED by the response of the United Nations on the Issue of Euthanasia, it is suggested that the resolution be repealed,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

Category: Moral Decency
Strength: Strong

Repeals don't have categories or strengths. You're meant to repeal by clicking on the appropriate link from the UN record of past resolutions.

The text itself is quite good, just a few grammar and style things:

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

Grammar's not right here. Remove "THAT", or replace "to be" with "is" or "has been"

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

At which they feel life is not worth living. Some want to carry on trying, some want to die. It's subjective, and you're bound to offend some who want to carry on by saying that their lives aren't worth living.

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

Please explain this.

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

No apostrophe in "its".

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

"Concluding" in this context reads to me like "ending". Perhaps "inferring" or just "noting".

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,

Clarification: "...those who wish to die and whose lives will be swiftly ended..."

Legalise Euthanasia


A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Grande

Description: A child was sat at his mother's bedside when she was unable to breathe for herself and was under constant care. All the child knew was that the dignity of this once strong woman was slowly being drained away, hour by hour, day by day. The child's mother once told him that if she were ever in this situation, that he should do the right thing and put her out of her misery. He decided that he would obey his mother's wishes, and was jailed for 'killing' his mother.

I ask you where is the justice in this?

That someone has no right to end suffering?

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.

Why should carers use up time on those certain to die, when this time could be spent with those with a chance of life? And for those using religion as a barrier, don't you think that whoever you believe in would rather see the person happy in paradise, rather than suffering?

Please think about this proposal carefully, and consider which path you would take if you were ever to be in this situation (God forbid)?

Votes For: 10810

Votes Against: 10031

Implemented: Fri Jan 16 2004


I would argue that the grounds of your repeal are baseless - there are a lot of safeguards in the system already. It can still be abused, but if you repeal this resolution, then the decision goes in to the hands of each nation and they can easily abuse it way outside the boundries of the original proposal.

(for example)


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


By repealing this resolution, you will not make euthanasia illegal throughout the UN - instead the choice will be in the hands of national governments, and they can easily decide to abuse the resolution. With no UN resolution in place, there will be nothing to limit how they do it.

So I am forced to oppose the repeal on the grounds that it will not achieve it's goals, and instead make the situation a lot, lot worse.

We can follow up a repeal with better pro-euthanasia legislation. And if abuses will continue, at least those regimes cannot use UN legislation to protect their actions.

We can follow up a repeal with better pro-euthanasia legislation.
Hmm, it might be tough though, as "Legalize Euthanasia" seems to have passed only by a small margin...

Hmm, it might be tough though, as "Legalize Euthanasia" seems to have passed only by a small margin...

Yeah, but look at how poorly the original resolution was written. It provides hardly any real support. I think many more nations would vote for a pro-euthanasia resolution if it was well written and well-founded.

The original was poorly written and failed to cover all aspects. By repealing it, the opportunity for a more comprehensive resolution is created. It is simply not possible to amend the previous resolutiom, as it is far too poor a basis to work from.

I am afraid that I still have to oppose it on the grounds I mentioned earlier. Because as much as I would like to believe a better resolution can be written, there is no way to ensure it will pass. And this is better than nothing at all.

Communist Collectives, I think you have a completely false understanding of euthanasia (associating it with murder) and the previously passed resolution that you are trying to repeal.

In my view, voluntary euthanasia is a good thing, and one of the most important freedoms that can be bestowed.

If you take it away, the Nationstates populations will resort to suicide rather then treatment if they get a terminal illness. Not to mention that doctors will be afraid to prescribe adequate painkillers for fear of losing their license!

It also seems that you are more concerned with 'moral decency' (and just what is decent about forcing people to suffer against their will?!?!) for this proposal than social justice. Moral elitism, maybe?

Communist Collectives, I think you have a completely false understanding of euthanasia (associating it with murder) and the previously passed resolution that you are trying to repeal.

In my view, voluntary euthanasia is a good thing, and one of the most important freedoms that can be bestowed.

If you take it away, the Nationstates populations will resort to suicide rather then treatment if they get a terminal illness. Not to mention that doctors will be afraid to prescribe adequate painkillers for fear of losing their license!

It also seems that you are more concerned with 'moral decency' (and just what is decent about forcing people to suffer against their will?!?!) for this proposal than social justice. Moral elitism, maybe?

Repealing this resolution won't outlaw euthanasia. It will only leave the matter up to the individual nations to decide. And actually, it seems like there's a general consensus that global legalization of euthanasia is a good thing, so a new resolution would probably pass.

Repealing this resolution won't outlaw euthanasia. It will only leave the matter up to the individual nations to decide. And actually, it seems like there's a general consensus that global legalization of euthanasia is a good thing, so a new resolution would probably pass.

In that case, there is no reason to support this repeal if another proposal that legalises euthanasia would be passed.

Repealing this resolution won't outlaw euthanasia. It will only leave the matter up to the individual nations to decide. And actually, it seems like there's a general consensus that global legalization of euthanasia is a good thing, so a new resolution would probably pass.

Which is where, I feel, the arguement falls down. The repeal is an attempt to stop the current resolution being abused by - well by people who would abuse it. So removing it is not going to stop that - it is only going to increase the abuses by those who would do such a thing. Regardless of whether another one would pass or not (and history, however small it might be, does not support the idea that it would) the arguement for this repeal is inconsistant with what it aims to achieve.

You are all missing the point. This resolution is intended to repeal a past resolution which is quite inadequate. It does not stop the rare cases of sufferers being left to suffer, and encourages the use of it as a vehicle for murder of those deemed 'unfit to live' by governments.

In that case, there is no reason to support this repeal if another proposal that legalises euthanasia would be passed.
Except that the resolution currently on the books is poorly written and quite vague. We need a resolution that will more clearly define euthanasia laws.

I must urge you all to ensure that your regional delegates register their support for this resolution before Sunday!

Which is where, I feel, the arguement falls down. The repeal is an attempt to stop the current resolution being abused by - well by people who would abuse it. So removing it is not going to stop that - it is only going to increase the abuses by those who would do such a thing. Regardless of whether another one would pass or not (and history, however small it might be, does not support the idea that it would) the arguement for this repeal is inconsistant with what it aims to achieve.

We could pass another which actively protected citizens from abuses by member states, so repealing and replacing would in the long term benefit citizens. And I reckon that a well-written replacement could pass.

EDIT: I think the chances of such would be increased if the title of the replacement accurately conveyed that it was about the right to personal choice to die, rather than just saying "euthanasia" which people often seem to assume means involuntary too.

You are all missing the point. This resolution is intended to repeal a past resolution which is quite inadequate. It does not stop the rare cases of sufferers being left to suffer, and encourages the use of it as a vehicle for murder of those deemed 'unfit to live' by governments.

And repealing it is not going to solve the problem.

Repealing it means that Euthanasia is not required to be legal. This would mean that a large proportion of governments would then make it illegal, at least partially solving the problem.

Repealing it means that Euthanasia is not required to be legal. This would mean that a large proportion of governments would then make it illegal, at least partially solving the problem.

No it wouldn't. In the real world, where euthanasia is illegal, there are many, MANY (http://www.saves.asn.au/resources/facts/fs21.htm) more abuses of euthanasia.

Basically, nations deciding to make it illegal and pretending it doesn't exist won't stop the problem. Most juries are inclines to acquit - just look at how hard it was to convict Kevorkian.

Also important and noteworthy is the principle of double effect. (http://www.saves.asn.au/resources/facts/fs23.htm)

Well I don't know how you manage your country, but in mine, law breakers are executed swiftly and efficiently.

And repealing it is not going to solve the problem.

It isn't repeal for the sake of repeal, it's repeal for the sake of replacement.

As it is, it's very easy for governments who oppose euthanasia to use the current loophole-ridden legislation to effectively illegalise it, so repealing won't actually make much difference.

For instance:

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.

I could easily define "certain age" as 4 times the record lifespan of the species in my nation, and "life-threatening illness" as an illness which can be absolutely proven to have been the sole and direct cause of death of every sufferer in history - an impossible feat.

"Also if the patient is in a coma, 5-10 years should be waited until those closest to them make a decision."

I could justifiably interpret "closest" as "physically closest", then bar all visits to such patients except for government agents, who would stand next to the patient's bed and decide to keep them alive.

So really the current resolution offers no bar to nations wishing to keep euthanasia illegal.

I think both sides are missing some points here. Once those holes have been filled, this will probably be a fine repeal to pass and will hopefully be followed by a better proposal to reinstate.

I could easily define "certain age" as 4 times the record lifespan of the species in my nation, and "life-threatening illness" as an illness which can be absolutely proven to have been the sole and direct cause of death of every sufferer in history - an impossible feat.



I could justifiably interpret "closest" as "physically closest", then bar all visits to such patients except for government agents, who would stand next to the patient's bed and decide to keep them alive.


Nargopia would appreciate it if the delegate from Myopia would stop pointing out our anti-euthanasia practices.

I thought you were pro legalisation?

But yeah, this is my point. Nargopia is apparently free to continue denying its citizens euthanasia rights.

The delegate from Nargopia pouts because Myopia didn't realize he was joking.

Of course Nargopia is pro-legalization. We're also pro-well-written resolutions and pro-regulation.

Oh, sorry.

It would appear, gentlemen, that the proposal failed to gain the neccessary support.

PRCC retires to home soil to consider their next move.

It would appear, gentlemen, that the proposal failed to gain the neccessary support.

PRCC retires to home soil to consider their next move.

I am sorry - you put a lot of effort in and it did deserve to come to the floor. I would have voted against it, as I totally disapproved of it, but still - sorry it did not make it :}