NationStates Jolt Archive

Members of the U.N and Esteemed Delegates,

I would like to call to attention my recent proposal to repeal the U.N resolution #43 legalizing Euthanasia.

I find that this is a heated debate at the moment and deserves to be reexamined by delegates.

Thank you.

It is generally appreciated if you post a copy in the forums.
Category: Repeal
Resolution: #43
Proposed by: Cathodia

Description: UN Resolution #43: Legalise Euthanasia (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Strong) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: Ladies and Gentlemen of the United Nations,

I come to you with a plea, one to listen to our morality as opposed to what we may think "compassionate" right now but will live to forget.
Who are we to judge who is fit of life or not? Can it be truly ascertained that those who do indeed fill out such a "legal document" have a full knowledge and desire of what they do? Many people who have life threatening illnesses suffer from forms of depression, and are cleary on no mental capacity to deem themselves to be "euthanised".

As for the argument of "a person happy in paradise, rather than suffer", a reference to the judeo-christian concept of Heaven, we must also identify the flaw of such an argument. Clearly, the act of suicide, even if it is applied by another person is a mortal sin resulting in a one-way ticket to "Hell".

This act, when carefully read, is similar to condoning suicide, a thoroughly preventable act if prevented and treated properly by qualified medical professionals.

I believe that Grande, the original creator of this resolution, seeked but to increase the amount of free hospital beds and save money on health care, something which a previously passed U.N bill has determined an inalienable human right, and not a luxury.

this Resolution will and must fall

I have no problem with Euthenasia. I believe people have the right to die. They have the right to live, don't they? Why then should they be deprived their right not to live?

I think we should leave religion and religous purposes out of the U.N.

--Benn

this Resolution will and must fall
We agree. Your resolution should fall.

Argument: Ladies and Gentlemen of the United Nations,

Don't forget the gender-neutrals.

I come to you with a plea, one to listen to our morality as opposed to what we may think "compassionate" right now but will live to forget.

Morality isn't respected as much as evidence is. That is because morality is relative. While that is your morality, it is not ours.

Who are we to judge who is fit of life or not?

The governments whose job it is to look out for our people. That's why we're in power, and it is our jobs to take care of them. In some cases, that means killing people.

Can it be truly ascertained that those who do indeed fill out such a "legal document" have a full knowledge and desire of what they do? Many people who have life threatening illnesses suffer from forms of depression, and are cleary on no mental capacity to deem themselves to be "euthanised".

As of yet, we have seen no treatment of true depression that did not amount to a form of brain death. Besides, that's why the option exists for others related to them to deal with it. Use that option.

As for the argument of "a person happy in paradise, rather than suffer", a reference to the judeo-christian concept of Heaven, we must also identify the flaw of such an argument. Clearly, the act of suicide, even if it is applied by another person is a mortal sin resulting in a one-way ticket to "Hell".

It's not an act of suicide. An act of suicide is taking your own life. Euthanasia is having someone else do it for you.

Also, your arguement is flawed in that it shows ignorance of religions. Wiccans and hundreds of others have their own form of paradise in their religions. And not all of them view suicide as going to some mythical underworld. It could reference any of those or it could be a reference to none. There is no evidence that supports your preposition it can only be one.

This act, when carefully read, is similar to condoning suicide, a thoroughly preventable act if prevented and treated properly by qualified medical professionals.

If read properly and with knowledge, you would realize that suicide is done by yourself and euthanasia is having others do it. It's more like going along with the idea of yourself being murdered than suicide, and even murder doesn't apply because it is willing.

I believe that Grande, the original creator of this resolution, seeked but to increase the amount of free hospital beds and save money on health care, something which a previously passed U.N bill has determined an inalienable human right, and not a luxury.

Once again, an assumption with no facts to back it. For all you know, he could have actually had human welfare in mind when he wrote it. Some people truly are miserable in life and have no purpose for living that they can see.

this Resolution will and must fall

I see a grammar error that needs correcting. You accidentally said "this Resolution" instead of "My proposal".

Vastiva regretfully supports the right of every being to self-determination, including a right to end ones own life when one wishes. So we cannot support your proposed repeal as we find it to be morally bankrupt.

Contract Law must follow two principles, the first of such, is that all signatories to a contract are in posession of their own faculities to agree to that contract at signing, which is why all legal documents require the attendence of two or more witness to the agreement... Secondly is that no third party can involve themselves in the contract. As such, the intent of this repeal, is to create precedent, whereby a third party, either indivudal or governmental, can illegally, and against contract, invalidate and violate the contractual agreement between those persons who have agreed to the contract... As such, the CRoT opposes this repeal for ethical ground...

Uh... resolution 43 is "Increased Access To Medicine." "Legalize Euthanasia" is resolution 44. Just thought I should point that out. :D

I am generally seen as a some what hardcore conservative by lots of more radical liberals (I live in seattle so I'm surronded by them), but I think people have the right to die if they want to and I agree with most of the people against this issue.

I am generally seen as a some what hardcore conservative by lots of more radical liberals (I live in seattle so I'm surronded by them), but I think people have the right to die if they want to and I agree with most of the people against this issue.
OOC:

Don't take it as a sign of anything.

Lots of people in Seattle don't think Rachel Corrie was a terrorist.

Well I still don't see my self as conservative as people think I am mainly from judging me on one of my view points.

I suppose you also want to ban this gay marriage smiley: :fluffle:

Ya I don't agree with the union between a gay couple being called a marriage, but I'm a strong supporter of one existing.

Gay and religious nutter asides, and sticking to the topic, Euthanasia is a wonderful and Compasionate gift that a government can offer to a citizen that has no desire to live with the agonis(z)ing pain of prolonged death or the unendureable knowledge that a vegitative state awaits you.

I am against repealing this.

Sorry.

How about we just pass a Right To Divorce Vegetative Spouse resolution instead?

How about we just pass a Right To Divorce Vegetative Spouse resolution instead?

No Need! If a spouse is euthanised the partner becomes a Widow/widower and is thus free to remarry or have relationships with other people and in some welfare nations, get a government monetary support for their loss in the form of widows/widowers pension.

Gay and religious nutter asides, and sticking to the topic, Euthanasia is a wonderful and Compasionate gift that a government can offer to a citizen that has no desire to live with the agonis(z)ing pain of prolonged death or the unendureable knowledge that a vegitative state awaits you.

I am against repealing this.

Sorry.

I agree, but for different reasons. I feel the same way about euthanasia that I do about abortion- a sad decision, but not one I should have any say so in (even as the leader of a country- it's up to each individual citizen to decide). Obviously mandatory discussions of "alternatives" with doctors wouldn't be as effective as in abortion cases. Therefore, I think the existing resolution should stay as it is (instead of repealing it and then submitting a ammended version).

P.S. Note that the resolution doesn't mention anything about doctors being forced to perform euthanasia. If your doctor won't do it, too bad. You can go to another doctor, but (generally) doctors who would perform euthanasia are rarer then those who wouldn't, and would therefore be more expensive.

ONce again, this is a decision that should be made by individual nations.

ONce again, this is a decision that should be made by individual nations.
Once again, this is a decision that should be made by individuals.
No government at any level should have a say.

***OFFICIAL RESPONCE***
This decision was given to Individual Nations. And the leaders of those Individual Nations decided that this is a United Nations matter. The masses spoke and the resolution was passed through not only the "Draft" stage, but the actual vote for the entire Membership of the United Nations. We, the membership of the United Nations, have kept Religion out of our decisions for numerous Resolutions and we should keep it out of this decision. Religion has no place in the decisions of what passes and what doesn't.

Even through my nation is a very religious state, we do realize that there should be a seperation between Church and State. Most of the Member Nations of the NSUN believe this.

Signed,
Mr. Shaz Bot, Emporer
The Holy Empire of Shazbotdom

Once again, this is a decision that should be made by individuals.
No government at any level should have a say.

No, all people, in all nations need equal rights and that includes the right to die. A problem is when people become "brain dead" they can't make the decision to die on their own...

However, a possible compromise could be in order, an addition to the resolution which would allow legalized euthanasia but when making a will or another similar legal document a statement should be made. "In case of _______ (I'm not sure of the formal term for it... I highly doubt it's "vegetable") I wish to be euthanized."

But, in the situation where one is faced with unbearable pain and can make the decision they should definitely have the right to die. My idea above is specifically for those who are "vegetables".

Just a thought...

No, all people, in all nations need equal rights and that includes the right to die. A problem is when people become "brain dead" they can't make the decision to die on their own...

However, a possible compromise could be in order, an addition to the resolution which would allow legalized euthanasia but when making a will or another similar legal document a statement should be made. "In case of _______ (I'm not sure of the formal term for it... I highly doubt it's "vegetable") I wish to be euthanized."

But, in the situation where one is faced with unbearable pain and can make the decision they should definitely have the right to die. My idea above is specifically for those who are "vegetables".

Just a thought...
I'm not certain we're disagreeing.
I don't recognize any governmental pretext to restrict euthanasia.

If somone wants to be euthanasied then let them be, if they don't want to be euthanasied then don't euthansied them. I think that this is a decision that should be made by the individuals but then if they don't have a decision written in a formal document or something it should goto the person with power of attorny.

I see a market for suicide booths...

Please select mode of death. Quick and painless or slow and horrible.

Yes I'd like to make a collect call.

You have selected slow and horrible.

Good choice. Bring it on baby!

(Knife pops out)

You are now dead! Thank you for using Stop and Drop. America's favorite since 2008.

:D

Futurama anyone?