NationStates Jolt Archive

Proposed by: Heatherlend

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

Argument: Resolution 43 is poorly written leaving room for abuse of the law. Most disturbing perhaps is the following:
-----

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.

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.
---
WHEREAS There is no definition of "serious illness" in the resolution, therefore there is no way to determine if a person is suffering from a serious illness or not. Likewise, "certain age" is also undefined. The resolution also fails to define *when* a person “cannot make the decision themselves” or *who* “those closest to them” are and *how* they are selected. Additionally, there is no standard set for “professional medical advice.”

Finally, when describing any situation involving human life and periods of time within that life, there is a big difference between 5 and 10 years. Also, the word “should” in reference statement does not say “must”, possibly implying the decision could be made upon a diagnosis of comatose state. This resolution could allow beneficiaries and health care professionals to make decision about an individual’s life from a foundation of financial interest rather than the best interest of the patient involved.

THEREFORE Resolution 43 shall be repealed and individual NationStates retain the right to enact legislation their respective governments find necessary to preserve the “right to die” or individual’s rights to choose life-ending treatments.
-----------------

While the purpose of the proposal is to repeal Resolution #43, we would not object to a better written proposal supporting the legalization of Euthanasia, if for no other reason but to support the rights of UN Members to keep it legal. As we are new to the UN we would appreciate any advice as to drafting a proposal from scratch as well as gather input from fellow members regarding the issue should this proposal pass.

We would also like to extend a big thank you to Krioval for your advice on this matter as well as to the other members who have supported the issue or offered their positions.

~ROH~

we would advise the representative from Heatherland that the reason there is no definition for 'serious illness' is because it is allowing the individual members to determine that. also, and you would have to run this pass a mod, but there are some borderline 'amendmants' in it, notably
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.
that can bee seen as an amendmant, so you might have to pass it by a mod. there have been some things come up over this due to recent RL events, but as no-one has put forward anything better, we would be against repealing this. there still needs to be some leavity in it for nations to set their own standards

that can bee seen as an amendmant, so you might have to pass it by a mod.

Could you explain that a little more to me as the part you quoted is from the original resolution and perhaps I am confused....

that can bee seen as an amendmant, so you might have to pass it by a mod.
Could you explain that a little more to me as the part you quoted is from the original resolution and perhaps I am confused....

Well, there are two things The Lynx Alliance might be trying to caution you against: amendments and new legislation from a repeal.

Now, I haven't read your repeal proposal, so I can't say if either is occuring here, but I can tell you what they are and what's wrong with them, mainly that they're illegal. The UN rules are pretty clear cut as far as repeals and amendments go. Repeals must only repeal a previous resolution. They are not allowed to introduce new legislation. And there are no amendments allowed. If one were to try making changes to a previous resolution, one would have to repeal the old one first, and then reintroduce the new and altered resolution.

So, if it does either of those things, it's illegal. But, I'm not sure it does.

So, if it does either of those things, it's illegal. But, I'm not sure it does.

All we want to do right now is repeal the initial resolution. That is all the proposal is saying.

Again, if there is support for a new resolution providing the proposal gets enough support and the resolution is repealed, I would love input on how to word this and where other NS fall as far as support, etc.

We'd support repealing this atrocious piece of legislation. Whilst we are fully supportive of the rights of individuals to choose to die, this resolution can easily be evaded by governments illiberal enough to want to deny such rights, and can also be quite easily twisted to legitimise various abuses.

So if there is a resolution:

We, the Republic of Seychellianflag, give this proposal: All cars must drive on the right-hand side of the road.

is the repeal resolution:


Recalling resolution 200 "Traffic Law,

Admitting that decisions on which side of the road to drive on is best left to individual nations,

Recall Resolution 200 "Traffic Law"

is it illegal because it says that countries should be allowed to make this decision?

Saying what 'should' happen is, surely, a subjective advisory note to justify why a resolution is wrong, not a new order to replace the old one?

I.e. Resolution A: "Euthanasia should be on the decision of doctors."

Resolution B: "Recall Res. A, because Euthanasia should be on the decision of the victim's family" - it's not ENFORCING that families have final responsibility for euthanasic decisions, just using it as an argument against the incumbent proposal.

All we want to do right now is repeal the initial resolution. That is all the proposal is saying.

Again, if there is support for a new resolution providing the proposal gets enough support and the resolution is repealed, I would love input on how to word this and where other NS fall as far as support, etc.
whoops, sorry, didnt realise that was taken from the original resolution. as we have stated before, the reason these are not defined is to leave it to individual nations to define it themselves. some may say the spouse is the best to decide. some may say the parents (if they are still living). some may say it should be left to the hands of doctors. and it is the same for the definition of serious illness. what is a serious illness in one nation is actually a mild illness in another

So if there is a resolution:



is the repeal resolution:



is it illegal because it says that countries should be allowed to make this decision?
no, as it removes the resolution. if it was to say, 'cars should all drive on the left-hand side', then yes it is illegal, as it is an amendmant. if it says nations should decide, then it it is just returning the power to them which had been taken away in the resolution

if it says nations should decide, then it it is just returning the power to them which had been taken away in the resolution

Exactly. Now if this proposal goes through and the resolution is appealed, The Republic of Heatherlend would like to know how other UN members would feel about the draft of a new resolution with the following points:

-Euthanasia is sanctioned by the UN (still a NS right to use it or not)
-UN sactioning is under certain guidelines

A terminal illness (what time frame - i.e. 6 months, 1 year, or eventually will kill you?)
Diminished Quality of Life (partial or complete paralysis? Loss of cognitive abilities - how severe? Other physical ailments?)
Medical Power of Attorney allowed to make decision (appointed by court, before hand by individual, or both?)
Method (We assume Legal Injection would be preferred option, but feel free to offer other suggestions)
Setting (Hospital? Nursing home? Place of individual's choosing?)


The reason a new resolution hasn't been drafter by the Republic of Heatherlend is that we wish to gather as much feedback as possible from other UN members so that the new resolution would be successful. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated.

And thank you - to everyone, for being so patient with this newbie!

sorry, but we support the fluidity of the current resolution. once you put hard definitions in, people will dispute them, it will get log-jammed, and eventually it will exprie in the que, leaving no replacement.

sorry, but we support the fluidity of the current resolution. once you put hard definitions in, people will dispute them, it will get log-jammed, and eventually it will exprie in the que, leaving no replacement.

I, too, kind of like it the way it is now. But if a semi-objective opinion is asked for, then I would be fine with giving my perspective to Heatherland, who, though a "newbie" by his or her own account, I believe to be doing very well so far.

(Off Topic: The Linx Alliance, in your 'location', I think you mispelt "alliance" as "allience". Heh, tis cool. I make many more, simpler mistakes than that. I just thought I'd point it out to you, in case you hadn't yet noticed.)

(Off Topic: The Linx Alliance, in your 'location', I think you mispelt "alliance" as "allience". Heh, tis cool. I make many more, simpler mistakes than that. I just thought I'd point it out to you, in case you hadn't yet noticed.)
thanx man, i will just change that. also, just notice you said Linx, not Lynx ;)

Exactly. Now if this proposal goes through and the resolution is appealed, The Republic of Heatherlend would like to know how other UN members would feel about the draft of a new resolution with the following points:

-Euthanasia is sanctioned by the UN (still a NS right to use it or not)
-UN sactioning is under certain guidelines

A terminal illness (what time frame - i.e. 6 months, 1 year, or eventually will kill you?)
Diminished Quality of Life (partial or complete paralysis? Loss of cognitive abilities - how severe? Other physical ailments?)
Medical Power of Attorney allowed to make decision (appointed by court, before hand by individual, or both?)
Method (We assume Legal Injection would be preferred option, but feel free to offer other suggestions)
Setting (Hospital? Nursing home? Place of individual's choosing?)


The reason a new resolution hasn't been drafter by the Republic of Heatherlend is that we wish to gather as much feedback as possible from other UN members so that the new resolution would be successful. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated.

And thank you - to everyone, for being so patient with this newbie!

I'm not sure a repeal is necessary in this instance.

Here's the text of the original:

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)?


Only the bolded section calls for any action whatsoever. Alright, now let's section this down.


I propose that euthanasia should be legalised.


Effect: Euthanasia is legal.



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.


Effect: Personal choice to “die with dignity” or continue on. Their choice.



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.

Effect: Re-emphasis on that it is the individual’s choice, not the State, not a doctor.



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.

Effect: Kin makes the decision, with medical advice.



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

Effect: Comatose patients have at least five but no more then ten years to recover before a decision can be made (not “has to” be made, only “can”).



The act also must be carried out in the most painless way possible.

Effect: Painless Euthanasia.

Now, let’s look at Heatherlend’s List of “UN Requirements”



A terminal illness (what time frame - i.e. 6 months, 1 year, or eventually will kill you?)
Diminished Quality of Life (partial or complete paralysis? Loss of cognitive abilities - how severe? Other physical ailments?)
Medical Power of Attorney allowed to make decision (appointed by court, before hand by individual, or both?)
Method (We assume Legal Injection would be preferred option, but feel free to offer other suggestions)
Setting (Hospital? Nursing home? Place of individual's choosing?)


A. Terminal Illness: By the original, this is not a requirement – someone over “a certain age” (determined by the State) has this right.

B. Diminished Quality of Life: Irrelevant. If someone has terminal cancer, inoperable and untreatable, it may not immediately be a problem. Equally, a failed liver will not kill immediately – it normally takes 10 to 14 days – and at first there is no diminishment of quality of life. There is tremendous pain and suffering to come, but it is not immediate. Further, without a transplant, a failed liver is a death sentence. Why wait until a late point when suffering has occurred if the individual chooses not to?

C. Medical Power of Attorney: National Sovereignty issue – definition of “kin” for purposes of the resolution.

D. Method: Defined already as “most painless way possible”. Each nation will have a different method (some disintegrate, some lethally inject, some “bullet to the head”). As such, mandating a single method will impinge on National Sovereignty, and make it difficult for some nations to follow the resolution.

E. Setting: If someone chooses to die in a field of flowers, why should they be denied this right? Or to die underwater, or in a private room, or whatever? Again, why is mandating location necessary?


We would therefore ask, how would additional legislation in any form further protect the patient or their rights? It would appear each suggestion by Heatherlend further restricts ones ability to choose for themselves how they wish to die - and we would know how the implimentation of additional "hoops and paperwork" would make anything better for the "predeceased"?

thanx man, i will just change that. also, just notice you said Linx, not Lynx ;)

Lol How ironic :D

-Euthanasia is sanctioned by the UN (still a NS right to use it or not)
-UN sactioning is under certain guidelines

A terminal illness (what time frame - i.e. 6 months, 1 year, or eventually will kill you?)
Diminished Quality of Life (partial or complete paralysis? Loss of cognitive abilities - how severe? Other physical ailments?)
Medical Power of Attorney allowed to make decision (appointed by court, before hand by individual, or both?)
Method (We assume Legal Injection would be preferred option, but feel free to offer other suggestions)
Setting (Hospital? Nursing home? Place of individual's choosing?)


We don't believe it is the state's place to decide what does or doesn't constitute a good reason for choosing death. Therefore, we'd support simply saying that if a person is legally an adult, is deemed to be sane, and has seriously expressed his/her wish to die in some officially recognised way, if somebody fulfils that wish they should not get in trouble.

What that basically means is that anyone sane who directly, unambiguously and in the presence of witnesses demands death, or who has previously created a living will while they were sane saying that they want to die under specified circumstances when they can't communicate or become of unsound mind, or who can't communicate their wishes and has previously passed power of attorney to another adult, who is deemed of sound mind and without malicious intent and chooses death, they should be killed quickly and painlessly - but definitely not left to starve because we are too scared to actively end life. The specifics of when, who and how would be set out by the patient. If they can't or have chosen not to do so, some standard procedure could be set out, but I'd leave that to individual nations or even to individual families, as long as the death is quick and humane.