NationStates Jolt Archive

Repeal "Legalise Euthanasia"
A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution


Category: Repeal
Resolution: #43
Proposed by: Federationz

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

Argument: Killing is killing, whether you frame it as "euthanasia" or not. The resolution was originally passed by gaining sympathy through the use of an extremely biased example and it should therefore be repealed.

The arguement is crude in its execution and too short for most to take it seriously, but I think this person has a point that may be valid. At the very least, it should be discussed.

So, what do you think? Do they have a valid arguement in their repeal? And, if you think so, how would you support or refute it?

then again, maybe not. if the case of euthanising someone is deemed killing and could be charged with murder, then killing someone in self-defence can be seen as murder too

OOC. My wife and i chatted about this tonight during a car journey. She is A Nurse and is of the view that if she was in a Vegitative state she would want to be left to die with dignity, where i was of the opinion that what if something triggered an awakening after a couple of months. Seems to me speaking ones mind on this is akin to choosing the winning Lottery numbers. "if i won the Lottery" "If I was left in a permanent vegitive state" we can say what ever we believe to be the future case, but we cant say for certain how we will actually feel in the future.
Ultimately the Ideal of euthanasia boils down to two things.

A, the patients lack of a quality of life due to incapacitation

B, the Patients Nearest and dearests lack of quality of life due to the patients incapacitation,

all too Often the B reason is the significant qualification for those who are to be euthanised as it is the nearest and dearest who ultimately make the descision.

IC. I am against Euthanasia. I want to live forever!

Sure, euthanasia is killing.
And?

Sure, euthanasia is killing.
And?

Exactly my sentiment.

Sure, euthanasia is killing.
And?
so is death by hitting someone in your car
so is, as stated by us before, killing someone in self defence
so is bombing someone in war time

personally, i would rather be euthanised than have to put myself, my partner, and my family through the agony of dying from cancer, or being in a vegetative state from which there is no recovery.

I would have to agree with The Lynx Alliance on this. Not all forms of killing are crimes, let alone equivalent crimes. For instance, while capital punishment is rare in Krioval, it does exist for some acts, and it is not considered a criminal act, but an act of justice. Similarly, defense of one's life is hardly criminal, and is promoted by UN Resolution 94. Refusing artificial methods of life support based on that person's wishes is also "killing", but it's different as well from the above.

So, since not all forms of killing are identical, I think the proposal is based off an incorrect supposition, and is therefore invalidated. While I believe there are some arguments against euthanasia that merit attention, I disagree that this is one of them.

What about his supposition about how the resolution gained support? That was the portion that got me to post it here.

What about his supposition about how the resolution gained support? That was the portion that got me to post it here.
there has been a few resolutions passed by gaining sympathy in some way or form. to me, that shouldnt be the basis for a repeal, because whatever the subject matter that got it in, it wasnt actually included in the resolution itself.

What about his supposition about how the resolution gained support? That was the portion that got me to post it here.

Good point, and one I missed entirely. I have to wonder, though, what arguments were used against it. I mean, there are potential abuses of euthanasia, from pressuring a patient to end his or her life to people misinterpreting the wishes of the patient (accidentally or intentionally), causing death.

I'd rather the story not been included in the resolution, along with the questions, but I blame "young UN syndrome" for that - this body appears to be quite a bit more sophisticated. At the same time, if the arguement was convincing, and it appears it was (just barely), I'd rather leave the resolution in place than risk several days of downright nasty "debate" followed by the Pacifics effectively making the final decision. Chalk it up to UN politics and a certain antipathy I have toward a few delegates to wait to vote until they're sure the vote will have an impact.

So, to distill my point down to its essentials here, I'd say that I find the story used was effective, but that I think that's the point of such things. One doesn't typically seek out and post information detrimental to one's case unless one has a ready rebuttal. That a resolution is passed because supporting arguments were sufficient to swing it through is not, in my opinion, sufficient cause to recommend a repeal.

refusal of treatment for a terminal diseaseor while in a vegitative state is one thing. euthanasia is a whole other topic. euthinasia is more or less along the lines of lethal injection. a toxin is induced into the victims body causing the shutdown of several vital organs. the death is also painful. violent convulsions have been documented in the assisted suicide cases in Oregon and the cases involving Dr. Kevorkian. refusal o be treated and kept alive through medical means should be left to the decision of the family and patient, but do not give sworn healers the right todo the exact opposite of that their job intitles.

I would support a repeal because the current legislation is full of vaguenesses and loopholes that make it fairly ineffective, and at times actually detrimental. However, I would prefer not to repeal until a replacement proposal has been drafted, ready to submit as soon as the repeal passes.

I would be in favour of the following laws beings implemented:

- If a patient is deemed lucid, and communicates a clear wish to die, someone should euthanise them, assuming they are unable to kill themselves.
- Every adult should be strongly encouraged to set out their specific wishes in a legal document, and these wishes are to be followed if they are unable to communicate.
- If there is no such document, and the patient cannot communicate, and a friend or relative claims that they believe the patient would wish to die, there will be an investigation in an attempt to work out what the patient would have wanted.
- If the decision is made that death is what the patient would want, all efforts shall be made to make it quick and humane, and if appropriate active methods shall be used, such as painkillers followed by a lethal injection. It should not be a matter of removing life support and passively killing the patient be starvation or similar.

Obviously, these ideas require some more development before they are ready for UN legislation.

we are in agreeance with _Myopia_ and their addition. but then again, one can argue that this limits nations ability to interpret the resolution and implement it how they see fit. kind of a double edged sword

If the decision is made that death is what the patient would want, all efforts shall be made to make it quick and humane, and if appropriate active methods shall be used, such as painkillers followed by a lethal injection. It should not be a matter of removing life support and passively killing the patient be starvation or similar.

Agrees stronly with this point!

OOC. i was horrified at the recent case in the states where the Patient (no need to name, You all know who it is) was being starved one day and fed the next. Imaging the trauma her body suffered while the courts Flip Flopped over wither she should be allowed to die or not.

we are in agreeance with _Myopia_ and their addition. but then again, one can argue that this limits nations ability to interpret the resolution and implement it how they see fit. kind of a double edged sword

Well the current legislation is so loophole-ridden that a nation can effectively ban euthanasia with ease. It has an age limit which nations can decide, so they can say "nobody under 5 billion years old may be euthanised".

The Oppressed Peoples of Jewakistan are against this suggestion; however, the Big Brother proposes a different solution to the current resolution:


1. AMEND the current resolution to legalize euthanasia, beginning from X% (to be decided later, BB suggests 115%) of a nation's average lifespan.

2. ALLOW euthanasia in special cases, such as diseases, will and lack of hope; only if expressed solemnly and knowingly by the person.

3. SHOULD the person is unable to express theirself to be euthanised, a special committee will meet, including expert physicians and family members to decide upon further actions. Should no action be taken, the person will live on their life, until natural death.


International politics game on.

Thank you.
Daniel Mandelboimsteinholz, Big Brother of Jewakistanians.

Illegal. You may not amend resolutions.

I am for the repeal of this resolution. I don't count dying an unnatural death as a basic human right, simply enough; on the contrary, euthanasia is the precise opposite.

Death resultant from an accident where there is no criminal neglect (as it is the courts' duty to determine) is unavoidable, although tragic. Death caused by an act of self-defense, although avoidable, can be exonerated upon these grounds: 1) All human beings have a right to preserve their own lives against the real, not imagined or percieved, ill-intentions of other human beings with, if necessary, lethal force. Whether one will exercise that right in the face of life-or-death situations depends upon one's own personal values. 2) Often, killing in self-defense prevents, by causing the death of the would-be killer, the deaths of more victims.

Euthanasia, however, is neither unavoidable nor exonerated upon such grounds of self-defense. Although nations perhaps may legalize it or prohibit it according to their own stance, it is not a basic human right and therefore it is not for the U.N. to enforce its legalization.

Although nations perhaps may legalize it or prohibit it according to their own stance, it is not a basic human right and therefore it is not for the U.N. to enforce its legalization.
I don't see anywhere in the UN where it says the UN only legislates to maintain basic human rights. With that in mind, your argument sems slightly flawed there.

We see a ban on euthanasia as denying the individual's ownership and sovereignty over his/her life and body, and therefore the right to choose death is most certainly a basic human right.