NationStates Jolt Archive

The Republic of Andreas Potens submits the following draft resolution for consideration.

Updated to reflect submitted text

The United Nations,

RECALLING the resolution, “Legalise Euthanasia,” notes the following problems:

1) Most of the arguments for the resolution use blatant appeals to emotion and are therefore logically fallacious.

2) The resolution, in the penultimate paragraph, at once implies that euthanasia is the moral course of action in some circumstances and asks those who find suicide and assisting in suicide to be morally unacceptable to ignore those beliefs.

3) The language of the resolution is unclear concerning the circumstances and means of its application and fails to properly identify areas of discretion for individual nations.

4) The resolution is written in a vernacular style, with grammatical errors and questions in lieu of arguments.

Also, NOTING the very narrow margin by which this contentious resolution originally passed, 51.9% to 48.1%, the United Nations hereby repeals Resolution #43, “Legalise Euthanasia.”

Here is the text of the resolution we are hoping to repeal.

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)?

Thank you for your help.

The United Nations,

HAVING EXAMINED the resolution, “Legalise Euthanasia,” notes the following problems:

1) While the right to die via refusal of medical treatment is important, by legalizing euthanasia, the resolution steps into questionable moral territory

I do not see this as a valid complaint. All UN resolutions step into questionable moral territory in some form. If you have problems with the moral standpoint of the UN, I must honestly question why you continue to be a member of it.

2) There is no recommendation for the nature of the legal document, mentioned as being necessary for the procedure to take place

This really is not that good of a complaint. This is a case of a resolution catering to those nations who would like some freedom to deal with it by allowing nations to determine the document individually.

3) The circumstances in which euthanasia would be legal are never fully clarified

Incorrect. I will quote the exact statement.

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.

The specific situations are laid out in that single sentence. While the wording is questionable, the fact remains that the situations are defined. A further exception is noted in the next quote.

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.

Totally, the resolution in question clearly states the exact situations to which it applies. The lack of a specified age allows the resolution to be tailored to individual needs.

4) The resolution incorrectly assumes in the penultimate paragraph that many faiths find suicide and assisting in suicide to be morally acceptable

Once again, I do not see where morals have a place. And this is both in the repeal and in the resolution in question.

5) There are several different instances of blatant appeals to emotion, which, being logically fallacious, comprise most of the argument for the resolution

Keep this one.

6) The resolution is written in a vernacular style, with incomplete sentences and questions in lieu of arguments

The questions presented actually are a form of argument. They force the reader to consider what they would do and make their decision. You may not like the style, but I see nothing to indicate it is invalid.

7) The Oxford English Dictionary does not recognize “legalise” as an acceptable spelling of the word “legalize”

That is because you are using a bad dictionary. Let me quote from a dictionary that actually knows what it is talking about.

Main Entry: le·gal·ise
British variant of LEGALIZE

You can find the quote here: http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=legalise

Next time, check a proper dictionary.

THEREFORE, given these problems, the United Nations hereby repeals Resolution #43, “Legalise Euthanasia.”

I am sorry, but your draft needs serious rewrites. Unless I told you to keep it, you need to drop it or edit it to more fully fit the facts.

While I consider this resolution, I (like Liluth's Venegence) consider this proposal unsupportable in its current form

The United Nations,

HAVING EXAMINED the resolution, “Legalise Euthanasia,” notes the following problems:

I would seriously suggest using the term "RECALLING". There's a certain arrogance that is felt in the statement "HAVING EXAMINED", almost as if you're stating "I examined this resolution and noticed these problems that all of you missed". I know this wasn't your intention, but the effect is slightly there. Yes, wording is amazingly important.

1) While the right to die via refusal of medical treatment is important, by legalizing euthanasia, the resolution steps into questionable moral territory

The UN seems to make it quite clear that rights are a much higher priority to morals. As such.....this isn't really a good argument

2) There is no recommendation for the nature of the legal document, mentioned as being necessary for the procedure to take place

Style arguments, while usable, should never be one of your bigger ones. Putting this second is foolish. Style arguments work more as "and even if you can't decide one way or the other, at least look at how poorly this was designed, so let us repeal it and replace it with something that has a bit more quality to it". Heck, the voting margin is probably much easier for you to argue as a major argument than this.

3) The circumstances in which euthanasia would be legal are never fully clarified

LV addressed this.

4) The resolution incorrectly assumes in the penultimate paragraph that many faiths find suicide and assisting in suicide to be morally acceptable

While I acknowledge LV's argument, I dispute this argument on two levels

First - I note the Japanese concept of Hari kari (sp?), which is basically an honorable way to die through suicide. It is and has been for a long time been seen as a culturally acceptable thing to do (in fact, in many ways its almost culturally expected in certain scenarios). As such, the statement you make, as written, is false.

However, that wasn't what you meant, considering the argument you were attacking. While the argument in the actual resolution is flawed (the statement in fact fails to understand religious doctrine and the reasoning behind it, even though its intent was clear and its manner is cute), the argument was actually challenging religious doctrine, asking people to forget what the gospel said and think about the true intention of their divine being. Its basically asking how a benevolent god could perfer the suffering of one of its followers.

5) There are several different instances of blatant appeals to emotion, which, being logically fallacious, comprise most of the argument for the resolution

Morality is nothing more than an appeal to emotion. Pick one (and I agree with LV, keep this one)

6) The resolution is written in a vernacular style, with incomplete sentences and questions in lieu of arguments

If it wasn't for the poor arguments above, this would be well placed.

7) The Oxford English Dictionary does not recognize “legalise” as an acceptable spelling of the word “legalize”

British vs American spellings. We don't standardize on either one. This argument is moot

THEREFORE, given these problems, the United Nations hereby repeals Resolution #43, “Legalise Euthanasia.”

No it doesn't

A minor point... The proposal states:

7) The Oxford English Dictionary does not recognize “legalise” as an acceptable spelling of the word “legalize”

This is simply not true. The Oxford English Dictionary, published by Oxford University Press, does recognize legalise as an acceptable spelling. Source (http://www.askoxford.com/?view=uk)

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

A minor point... The proposal states:

7) The Oxford English Dictionary does not recognize “legalise” as an acceptable spelling of the word “legalize”

This is simply not true. The Oxford English Dictionary, published by Oxford University Press, does recognize legalise as an acceptable spelling. Source (http://www.askoxford.com/?view=uk)

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations
Ah! I was about to point that out but you beat me to it. The OED is the only dictionary that matters. How could it not recognise legalise? These Websters people! Tsk.

Here is a rather revised version. My country thought it would be interesting to see what the reaction to a repeal might be. We are also considering, as an alternative, a resolution that guarantees the right to refuse performing an assisted suicide. It might be possible to word it in such as way that it would stand on its own even if this resolution were repealed later (i.e. not an amendment). Anyway...

The United Nations,

RECALLING the resolution, “Legalise Euthanasia,” notes the following problems:

1) There are several different instances of blatant appeals to emotion, which, being logically fallacious, comprise most of the argument for the resolution

2) The resolution is written in a vernacular style, with grammatical errors and questions in lieu of arguments

3) The resolution, in the penultimate paragraph, fails to consider those faiths that find suicide and assisting in suicide to be morally unacceptable

THEREFORE, given these problems, the United Nations hereby repeals Resolution #43, “Legalise Euthanasia.”

I'm still debating the wording of point number three. I know that some might not consider this important, but I know that many sects of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam would take issue with euthanasia (though many would be for it as well, of course).

My apologies about the spelling issue. While the OED usually includes many variants from the major English speaking countries, it would seem that this was not included.

Oh, and that OED link is interesting. When I checked in on OED.com it gave no results.

Nice to see you incorporated so many of our comments

The United Nations,

RECALLING the resolution, “Legalise Euthanasia,” notes the following problems:

1) There are several different instances of blatant appeals to emotion, which, being logically fallacious, comprise most of the argument for the resolution

2) The resolution is written in a vernacular style, with grammatical errors and questions in lieu of arguments

3) The resolution, in the penultimate paragraph, fails to consider those faiths that find suicide and assisting in suicide to be morally unacceptable

I would probably swap 2 and 3. I'm trying to think of a good way to word 3 though. I think probably something along the lines of challenging the statements made by the leaders of different faiths, but I can't think of a good way to word it.

THEREFORE, given these problems, the United Nations hereby repeals Resolution #43, “Legalise Euthanasia.”

I still vote that you mention something about the vote margin.

The United Nations,

RECALLING the resolution, “Legalise Euthanasia,” notes the following problems:

1) There are several different instances of blatant appeals to emotion, which, being logically fallacious, comprise most of the argument for the resolution

2) The resolution is written in a vernacular style, with grammatical errors and questions in lieu of arguments

Hmm... Go with Forgotten on this one.

3) The resolution, in the penultimate paragraph, fails to consider those faiths that find suicide and assisting in suicide to be morally unacceptable

I would instead argue that it asks some people opposed to suicide to step outside their morality and not let it influence their decision when on the other hand it argues in a style that suggests a morality supporting its stance.

I would instead argue that it asks some people opposed to suicide to step outside their morality and not let it influence their decision when on the other hand it argues in a style that suggests a morality supporting its stance.

Ooo, that's a much better way of putting it

2 & 3 switched, which I agree seems to work better. The wording on 2 is still a bit fuzzy, but is that better? Also, I really like trying to include the vote margin, but I couldn't think of a better way to do so.

The United Nations,

RECALLING the resolution, “Legalise Euthanasia,” notes the following problems:

1) There are several different instances of blatant appeals to emotion, which, being logically fallacious, comprise most of the argument for the resolution

2) The resolution, in the penultimate paragraph, fails to present a clear, religious justification for euthanasia to those whose beliefs find suicide and assisting in suicide to be morally unacceptable

3) The resolution is written in a vernacular style, with grammatical errors and questions in lieu of arguments

Also, CONSIDERING the very narrow margin by which this resolution originally passed, 51.9% to 48.1%, the United Nations hereby repeals Resolution #43, “Legalise Euthanasia.”

2 & 3 switched, which I agree seems to work better. The wording on 2 is still a bit fuzzy, but is that better? Also, I really like trying to include the vote margin, but I couldn't think of a better way to do so.

I'd go along the lines of "NOTING the narrow margin this resolution was passed by and feeling it presents a tyranny of a very slim majority" or something like that. #2 I think you need to make a stronger argument about the very contradiction in the emotional appeal (it appeals to an emotion, and then encourages people to abandon their own emotional argument of morality). However, I like how you changed that to suit your own argument and, while I feel it is a bit weaker, I think it is a fairly good argument in its own right.

I need to think faster. Every time I post more responses are there.

I new thought for #2.

2) The resolution, in the penultimate paragraph, at once implies that euthanasia is the moral course of action in some circumstances while also asking those whose faith finds suicide and assisting in suicide to be morally unacceptable to ignore those beliefs.

I need to think faster. Every time I post more responses are there.

I new thought for #2.

2) The resolution, in the penultimate paragraph, at once implies that euthanasia is the moral course of action in some circumstances while also asking those whose faith finds suicide and assisting in suicide to be morally unacceptable to ignore those beliefs.

THAT is a beautiful argument.

OOC: OK, I have to get up early tomorrow so I'm checking out. I'll check back in tomorrow morning. Thanks for the help.

I need to think faster. Every time I post more responses are there.

I new thought for #2.

2) The resolution, in the penultimate paragraph, at once implies that euthanasia is the moral course of action in some circumstances while also asking those whose faith finds suicide and assisting in suicide to be morally unacceptable to ignore those beliefs.

I believe we have completed this.

OK, then. Here is the most recent draft of the resolution:

The United Nations,

RECALLING the resolution, “Legalise Euthanasia,” notes the following problems:

1) There are several different instances of blatant appeals to emotion, which, being logically fallacious, comprise most of the argument for the resolution

2) The resolution, in the penultimate paragraph, at once implies that euthanasia is the moral course of action in some circumstances while also asking those whose faith finds suicide and assisting in suicide to be morally unacceptable to ignore those beliefs.

3) The resolution is written in a vernacular style, with grammatical errors and questions in lieu of arguments

Also, NOTING the very narrow margin by which this contentious resolution originally passed, 51.9% to 48.1%, the United Nations hereby repeals Resolution #43, “Legalise Euthanasia.”

I'll be back later today to see if there are any more suggestions, but if this seems suitable, I'll go ahead and submit it and then campaign for quorum.

The author of this proposal has done fine work in accommodating the well-founded concerns and excellent suggestions of the honorable members who have commented thus far.

We must respectfully disagree with the distinguished representative of Liliths Vengeance that the language of the proposal is sufficiently clear concerning its application. We agree that nations should be allowed great latitude in applying the requirements in their own circumstances. But the fuzziness of the proposal's provisions is disturbing. What is a "freak situation"? Who are "those closest to them"? Who is to decide that a person is "unable to make the decision for [himself/herself]"? If these issues are to be left to the discretion of individual nations -- as they should be -- that should be clearly stated, not left to assumption or default.

We recommend the addition of something like this, inserted where appropriate:

(-) The language of the resolution is unclear and ambiguous concerning the circumstances and means of its application. Matters which, quite rightly, should be left to the discretion of individual nations and fall under the purview of national legal systems are not properly identified.

To us, this is a significant argument in favor of the resolution's repeal.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

(-) The language of the resolution is unclear and ambiguous concerning the circumstances and means of its application. Matters which, quite rightly, should be left to the discretion of individual nations and fall under the purview of national legal systems are not properly identified.

Perhaps something like this:

(-) The language of the resolution is unclear concerning the circumstances and means of its application, and fails to properly identify areas of discretion for individual nations.

If it is included, I think it should be point 2 or 3.

I do not know if you have proposed this already, but I have a suggestion for clearing up the grammar in this draft.

1) There are several different instances of blatant appeals to emotion, which, being logically fallacious, comprise most of the argument for the resolution

The words "several" and "different" used back-to-back like this are redundant. I would suggest saying simply "several." Also, the modifier "being logically fallacious" implies that their being fallacious has something to do with why they comprise most of the argument. I would substitute "although" for "being."

2) The resolution, in the penultimate paragraph, at once implies that euthanasia is the moral course of action in some circumstances while also asking those whose faith finds suicide and assisting in suicide to be morally unacceptable to ignore those beliefs.

Using the phrase "at once" followed by a present-tense verb obligates you to use a verb in the present tense later in the sentence. For example, "at once implies...and asks those" instead of "while also asking those." Also, I would refrain from mentioning faith in this proposal: "those who find suicide." Some people who do not subscribe to any faith still find suicide and assisted suicide morally unacceptable.

I would also include a period at the end of point (3).

This should make your argument about grammatical errors in the UN resolution a little bit stronger.

Ok, here is the latest update. I think I'll go ahead and submit it since things have slowed down a bit since yesterday. Thanks for the excellent suggestions.

The United Nations,

RECALLING the resolution, “Legalise Euthanasia,” notes the following problems:

1) Most of the arguments for the resolution use blatant appeals to emotion and are therefore logically fallacious.

2) The resolution, in the penultimate paragraph, at once implies that euthanasia is the moral course of action in some circumstances and asks those who find suicide and assisting in suicide to be morally unacceptable to ignore those beliefs.

3) The language of the resolution is unclear concerning the circumstances and means of its application and fails to properly identify areas of discretion for individual nations.

4) The resolution is written in a vernacular style, with grammatical errors and questions in lieu of arguments.

Also, NOTING the very narrow margin by which this contentious resolution originally passed, 51.9% to 48.1%, the United Nations hereby repeals Resolution #43, “Legalise Euthanasia.”