NationStates Jolt Archive

Thank you to all of you who commented on my previous posts, your comments have been very helpful.

Below is the text of my new proposal, Repeal "Legalise Euthanasia". While Mayakovskia's domestic policies would allow legalised euthanasia should the resolution be repealed, I do not believe that legalised euthanasia should be imposed on individual NationStates. Instead, they should have the right to choose to legalise or ban it. I would welcome support both from those who share my stance, and from those who are anti-euthanasia, and would wish my proposal to become law so as to criminalise the practice in their own States.

At the moment, the proposal in on Page 12 - http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/06692/page=UN_proposal/start=55

-

The United Nations,

RECOGNISING the need for all UN members to provide a good standard of healthcare for all their citizens;

ACKNOWLEDGING that while there are many who believe that euthanasia is justifiable, there are also many who believe that it is immoral;

RECOGNISING ALSO the rights of individual sovereign states to determine their own social policies, and to follow their own religious beliefs;

REGRETTING the emotive and inexact language of Resolution 43, and its anti-religious sentiments;

BELIEVES THAT it is the right of each individual NationState to self-determine its own policies on euthanasia, free from central diktat;

and hence,

REPEALS "Legalise Euthanasia".

I would agree with this. It should be every citizens right to decide when their life should end. This is, certainly, a sure way to do that.

I don't agree that nations should be allowed to decide this for themselves. To deny someone the right to choose to end their life is a gross infringement on their basic rights. And I don't believe that religious beliefs can ever be a legitimate basis for law. So I don't feel that I can support your proposal and its arguments specifically.

That said, I do want to see this resolution repealed, because it is such a poor piece of legislation that it is easy to sidestep if you want to illegalise euthanasia, and it is full of loopholes legitimising all kinds of abuses. But I want it replaced with something that does protect the right to have requests to die to be fulfilled.

I don't agree that nations should be allowed to decide this for themselves. To deny someone the right to choose to end their life is a gross infringement on their basic rights. And I don't believe that religious beliefs can ever be a legitimate basis for law. So I don't feel that I can support your proposal and its arguments specifically.

That said, I do want to see this resolution repealed, because it is such a poor piece of legislation that it is easy to sidestep if you want to illegalise euthanasia, and it is full of loopholes legitimising all kinds of abuses. But I want it replaced with something that does protect the right to have requests to die to be fulfilled.

I, too, support euthanasia, but I have two things to say about both that and Myopia's comments.

Normally the performance of euthanasia is not a decision made by the one being euthanized, but a decision made by those close to the one being euthanized, who may or may not know what the patient truly wanted, or may not care. So, generally it's not a matter of whether or not to let a patient choose to end his or her life, but, in fact, a matter of whether or not to let a patient's relatives choose to end his or her life. That's why people have mixed feelings on the subject of full legalization. It's not truly a religious issue - rather, some find it immoral - religion is just one of the reasons not to forcibly legalize it.

I do support certain parts of euthanasia, namely, if it can be proved that the patient wants it. I do not find that aspects of euthanasia are immoral. That said, I also do not think that euthanasia needs to be forcibly legalized in all its forms internationally, because I feel that it should be the right of that nation to decide for itself. Thus, I would support any proposal that repealed this resolution, despite its arguments, as long as the proposal gets repealed.

I believe that it should be the right of a particular state to legalise or ban euthanasia, but I believe that in making this decision the government of that particulat state should reflect the will of the people of that state. If the population a state support euthanasia - as many will - it is the duty of that government to legalise it. If they oppose it, that wish must be respected.

Also, I think it's clear that an individual government, if legalising euthanasia, could come up with a better piece of legislation than the one that sits on the UN statute now. Hopefully, this will clarify their position, reduce any politicisation of their health servive, and help to reduce legal action on that health service, as a result of imprecise or confusing legislation.

I think this should definitely be repealed.

While I am a supporter of euthanasia when it is the designated choice of the affected, I don't think this is the sort of thing that should be forced upon the entire body. It's an infringement upon the rights of individual nation-states to find their own way in governance.

I think this should definitely be repealed.

While I am a supporter of euthanasia when it is the designated choice of the affected, I don't think this is the sort of thing that should be forced upon the entire body. It's an infringement upon the rights of individual nation-states to find their own way in governance.

*looks at you funny*

"rights of individual nation-states to find their own way in governance"?

Riiiiigght. This is a joke, right? Am I on Candid Camera?

They joined the UN, right? When you join the UN, you sign away your rights. In this, it's a lot like marriage.

Saint Uriel strongly supports this repeal, and not just because we are a Roman Catholic nation. The original resolution is very badly written and the repeal does promote national sovereignty in a meaningful way. Euthanasia is not truly an international topic and, in our opinion, should not be regulated by the UN.

When you join the UN, you sign away your rights. In this, it's a lot like marriage.
OOC: God, don't I know that....

Agreeing with St. Uriel, on both counts :p


While I do understand that joining the UN brings with it a certain amount of compromise, I believe there are issues that are best dealt with in a more localized government. This is an issue I believe should be dealt with in the hands of the people to reflect the views and beliefs of each individual nation, not mandated by an overpowering father figure.


Stamosia would individually support euthansia for those that choose it for themselves, but I do not feel that I should be making this particular decision for everyone else.

I guess I'm taking the pro-choice stance.

I believe this is a perfectly acceptable proposal. Euthanasia will always be a touchy subject, I myself am all for it but feel it is a subject which is best decided within local governments instead of a forced law on all member countries

I believe this is a perfectly acceptable proposal.

Agreed. Missytoe18 will support this proposal.

How about a small, teensy, weensy little clause: Only available for the Mother in Law.

Rogue Newbie, like you I'm not terribly enthralled by the concept of relatives choosing death for patients who can't communicate unless it can be demonstrated that that's what they would have wanted. But that doesn't need to be legalised.

After repealing this, a proposal could mandate that if lucid adults demand death, their wishes be fulfilled, that if an adult patient is non-lucid in the long term, the terms of any living will (including a request to die) must be adhered to, and saying that where evidence of the patient's wishes cannot be obtained from the patient or from a living will, that an effort should be made to discover what their wishes were and follow them. It could even specifically outlaw euthanasia when there was no clear evidence that the patient would have wanted to die.

Actually, I support a repeal, despite being pro-euthanasia. THe main reason is that both denying a person the right to die, and that euthanasia is killing could both be construed as immoral. It's a problem that is best left up to nations to solve.

If this is repealed and a replacement is put forward, I would like to see a resolution that doesn't put an obligation on all UN member states to accept euthenasia. Instead I would prefer to see a resolution that:

Allows nations to legalise euthenasia;
Prevents the prosecution or incarceration of people who wish to travel to a state that allows euthenasia, and;
prevents the presecution of those who assist in this act.

In this way, a nation is allowed to keep its laws on euthenasia intact, but those who are absolutely certain of their wish to die can still take advantage of neightbouring countries with different laws on the subject.

If this is repealed and a replacement is put forward, I would like to see a resolution that doesn't put an obligation on all UN member states to accept euthenasia. Instead I would prefer to see a resolution that:

Allows nations to legalise euthenasia;
Prevents the prosecution or incarceration of people who wish to travel to a state that allows euthenasia, and;
prevents the presecution of those who assist in this act.

In this way, a nation is allowed to keep its laws on euthenasia intact, but those who are absolutely certain of their wish to die can still take advantage of neightbouring countries with different laws on the subject.


Sounds like a winner