NationStates Jolt Archive

I have submited my proposal to repeal resolution 43. My arguments are specified there. I urge all UN delegates to seriously consider my proposal. Thank you.

Any discussions/questions can be posted as a reply.

AESIES

So you are saying that people may not choose to end their lives because they would be offending people who have a religious outlook upon the world? Most euthanasia cases would not even be public knowledge if they weren't over publicised by news agencies seeking to drive ratings up by playing on religion.

The resolution that was passed gave us the right to choose whether to end unnecessary suffering. It also gives us the ability to avoid wasting vital medicines that are often in short supply.

seharai is against the repeal of this resolution and will be opposing it if it comes to a vote.

Here's the proposal text:

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


Category: Repeal
Resolution: #43
Proposed by: Aesies

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

Argument: ACKNOWLEDGING that the Resolution #43 had the best of intentions
to decrease the suffering of patients in a condition in a long coma or similar conditions

yet at the same time ACKNOWLEDGING that medical advancements may yet revive the patient to his or her normal state

NOTING that the decision was passed by a mere 750+ votes, compared to the voting size of close to 20 000

NOTING the world's major religions do condemn Euthanasia on the basis on god-given life and RECALLING Resolution #19 on "Religious Tolerance"

RECOGINISING that it is difficult to judge when such a condition has been reached, even with th most acute and precise medical judgment

RECOGNISING that relatives of the patient may have different conflicting ideas on the patient and this will cause even more bitterness and grief to the family

RECOGNISING that Resolution #43 was badly-worded in its inclusion of a narrative

RECOGNISING that the 2nd portion (as follows) of the resolution was a violation of human rights, as the patient has no chance to give any consent

"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"

REQUESTS that Resolution #43: "Legalise Euthanasia" be REPEALED

and SUGGESTS that other U.N. members search for a better alternative and propose them to further refine the resolution

no, non, nein! seharai, you misunderstood. they can choose to end their lives, yes, but you see a repeal is an objection to a resolution, and the main focus is that it allows a human to be killed WITHOUT his agreement. *see resolution 43* not only that, besides religious reasons there are many more reasons. like relatives may not agree with each other whether the life of the patient sould be terminated.

Here's the original resolution.

Legalise Euthanasia
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Grande

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)?


Votes For: 10,810
Votes Against: 10,031

Implemented: Fri Jan 16 2004



I'm kind of interested in what argument Aesies is attempting...

I have advised my delegate to support the proposal.

thank you very much we still lack support :(

need 137 more by thursday :(

please do persuade your delegates to even CONSIDER my argument.

thanks.

I would concentrate more on the specific failures of the text of the original resolution. If you put these first, focus on them, and tone down the opposition to the principle (especially the religious bit), I think you might be able to persuade supporters of euthanasia rights to back you in repealing this resolution, without losing the support of many anti-euthanasia nations.

no, non, nein! seharai, you misunderstood. they can choose to end their lives, yes, but you see a repeal is an objection to a resolution, and the main focus is that it allows a human to be killed WITHOUT his agreement. *see resolution 43* not only that, besides religious reasons there are many more reasons. like relatives may not agree with each other whether the life of the patient sould be terminated.

Actually I did not misuinderstand that part of the legislation. I have looked over that part of resolution 43 and sympathise with it.
-If the person in question is Christian/Muslim/any other belief their family will most likely share that faith and will be against euthanasia.
-The only circumstances in which I oppose this is where it is for personal gain (e.g. Inheritance)

I would concentrate more on the specific failures of the text of the original resolution. If you put these first, focus on them, and tone down the opposition to the principle (especially the religious bit), I think you might be able to persuade supporters of euthanasia rights to back you in repealing this resolution, without losing the support of many anti-euthanasia nations.

I think _Myopia_ is absolutely correct on this. If your repeal proposal fails this time, you may want to re-write it with those suggestions in mind.

Isn't passing a resolution to legalize euthanasia in all U.N. member countries micro-managing a bit? Regarding civil rights, I thought that the purpose of the U.N. was to make resolutions protecting the freedoms of citizens worlwide in a broad sense while allowing more complex and situational issues, such as euthanasia, to be determined by individual goverments as they see fit. If this is the case, then I think that legalizing euthanasia in all U.N.-member countries is exerting the power of the U.N. too far.

Isn't idealism wonderful that way?

On the one hand, you have some people that believe that Euthanasia is such an important right that it SHOULD be guaranteed by the UN (and by that note, Same Sex Marriage, etc). After all, the rights guaranteed by the UN often oppose most oppressive dictators so they aren't exactly universally agreed upon - perhaps not even by a majority of nations (gender equality?). Where do you draw the line then? Why should you stop at "basic human rights" and go onto the rights that even democratic nations cannot be trusted to make the "right" decision on. Why not correct their "mistaken" (or "horrific") view so that all people around the world may be guaranteed such a vital right?

Personally, I agree with you, but to believe that's a valid and undisputed argument on these forums.....you need to stick around more.

Regardless, the Legalize Euthanasia Resolution had some serious flaws into it. Whether you believe in Euthanasia or not, failure to address these flaws is.....being too idealistic the other way.

Unfortunately, idealism is all too common.

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

Argument: ACKNOWLEDGING that the Resolution #43 had the best of intentions
to decrease the suffering of patients in a condition in a long coma or similar conditions

yet at the same time ACKNOWLEDGING that medical advancements may yet revive the patient to his or her normal state

Yes. But how long will those be in comming? What quality of life will they live afterwards? And how much money will be wasted if it doesn't come within the patient's lifetime?

NOTING that the decision was passed by a mere 750+ votes, compared to the voting size of close to 20 000

That won't get it dismissed. In fact, the ones with votes that close tend to be utter bastards to even attempt repealing.

NOTING the world's major religions do condemn Euthanasia on the basis on god-given life and RECALLING Resolution #19 on "Religious Tolerance"

Wrong. Most of the world's major religions do allow for it. Remember: This is NS, not reality, and with NS a lot more religions are in the "major" category.

RECOGINISING that it is difficult to judge when such a condition has been reached, even with th most acute and precise medical judgment

Not really that difficult if you have doctors work on a list of criteria.

RECOGNISING that relatives of the patient may have different conflicting ideas on the patient and this will cause even more bitterness and grief to the family

Solution is simple: Person with power to make medical decisions is person who makes medical decision.

RECOGNISING that Resolution #43 was badly-worded in its inclusion of a narrative

You're attacking a story that deals with people's heart strings. That automatically makes you look lower than dead pond scum in the eyes of the typical voter, at which point they'll let their emotions decide their vote for them. Basically, attacking that story is not the way to go if you plan on this passing.

RECOGNISING that the 2nd portion (as follows) of the resolution was a violation of human rights, as the patient has no chance to give any consent

In those cases, the person can't make an informed decision otherwise, so doing anything to prolong their life is also a violation of human rights. Pretty much the only way doctors can get around it is to discharge the patient and let the family figure out what to do.

"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"

It's actually pretty rare for a person to be in a coma for longer than ten years and ever come out of it before they die of old age. Most of the stories of that happening are urban myths or perversions of the occasional true case.

REQUESTS that Resolution #43: "Legalise Euthanasia" be REPEALED

and SUGGESTS that other U.N. members search for a better alternative and propose them to further refine the resolution

I wouldn't bother supporting this repeal. It brings up religion without bothering to consider important differences between the unthinking words of the repeal and the reality of the world they are dealing with while at the same time pulling such stupid actions as attacking a heart-string story, something anyone with half a brain can say will result in very bad publicity for the repeal and the author. Basically, this manages to do everything wrong without managing to break the rules.

If this reaches quorum, you can expect a telegram campaign opposing it to start. Once that does, you'll pretty much get the same reaction as if you proposed that the UN put babies in sacks, beat the sacks against the sidewalk until the crunching noises stopped, and then ate what was in the sacks.

NOTING the world's major religions do condemn Euthanasia on the basis on god-given life and RECALLING Resolution #19 on "Religious Tolerance"

Define major. There are no religions which have a real hold over Yiplonia at the moment, but I know that many nations (and we all know there are LOTS) have unique religions specifically relating to their own culture... To say 'the world's major religions' in such a way is a gross generalisation.

It's actually pretty rare for a person to be in a coma for longer than ten years and ever come out of it before they die of old age. Most of the stories of that happening are urban myths or perversions of the occasional true case.

*nods* and those that do generally have suffered massive brain damage. Most have no memory and can barely move.

I won't specifically quote the rest of the points 'cause it's late and I don't wanna get bogged down. If, Aesies, you really want to repeal the resolution on grounds of bad wording, I suggest you offer up a repeal specifically targeted at bringing about a NEW proposal and offer a draft of the new proposal wording before the repeal is issued. I would note that a proposal like this will *always* be controversial, and if you try to bring religion in too then chances are a well-publicised thread will attract major debate.

I however am I against the idea... you'd be amazed how many people die in some hospitals because the money which could be used for equipment to perform an emergency operation is used instead for equipment to keep a bed-bound patient in a coma for another two weeks. It's a sobering thought.