NationStates Jolt Archive

I here transcribe my argument for the Repeal of this Resolution #43 as found in the Proposal submitted by me today.


Whilst We recognize the sensitivity of this issue it is precisely because of this sensitivity that we do not feel that the national sovereignty of U.N. nations should be overruled on an issue of this importance by a mere margin of 779 votes in 10,000. We ask those of you who feel strongly in favor of this issue to understand the will of those nations who cannot accept it and allow for this to be an issue left to the voters at a local level. While most, if not all nations, would likely agree that the wanton prolongation of life in a situation of great physical or psychological pain is unnecessary there is for many a great step from this to allowing the termination of a life that would not expire on its own, regardless of the will of the individual. It is a dangerous moral slope which is best left to the individual sovereignty of each of our peoples.


I would appreciate the support of all nations who, like mine, feel their self determination has been curtailed by this act and all the nations who fear that strange foreign leaders may one day play a part in deciding the future of their populace on issues of such supreme delicacy. While some issues that arise in the U.N. are of immense importance to safeguarding Human Rights and the dignity of people some of moral ambiguity like this one are bestleft to each one of us. Please feel free to assist me with any constructive criticism you may have.

Why is the number of votes important? It passed a good long while ago and no repeal attempt has ever made it to the floor, so clearly the 779 vote difference is only a fraction of the support it appears to have.

The slippery slope arguement is somewhat fallacious (sp?), and would also not be solved by repealing this resolution. Euthanisia would still be legal until people decided otherwise, and if someone wants to die, and someone is willing to help them, it will still happen. All the repeal would achieve is to increase the crime rates in every nation where it was made illegal.

I believe the UN is here to protect the rights of the people against the oppressio of their governments. And if someone no longer feels their life is worth living, it should be their choice to end it, not the choice of someone sat in an office two thousand miles away who doesn't know them and doesn't care about them.

And if - as you say - the UN has a role in ensuring the rights and dignities of the people, surely being allowed to die with dignaty is one of the greatest of those rights?

The closeness of the vote indicates to me that Legalize Euthanasia is a good target for repeal.

"Good" in the sense of "easy" - I hold no settled opinion on the resolution or on euthanasia in general.

The closeness of the vote, however, is not a reason for repeal.
I haven't even read the resolution and can think of several valid reasons to want to repeal the proposal (even if I don't agree with any of them). Use those and write it up nicely.

The Difficulty with this is the issue of euthanaisa pulls on two opossing emotions. The majority of the nations peoples dont like to see the suffering of their loved ones but in the same breath do not wish to lose them. I my self am torn between insisting that all known medical and other procedures be exhausted before euthanaisa is even considered but then that only serves to prolong suffering which is the reason for euthanasia in the first place.

I can honestly say that i cant vote on this as its too emotional a decision, but my ideals of freedom and Liberty forces my hand to give the option and let the people speak for them selves.

I say do not repeal this on those grounds.

President Murphy,
The Realm of Hibernia.