Andreas Potens
29-09-2005, 01:35
While 25 delegates have been very generous in their support of the resolution to repeal "Legalise Euthanasia," the Republic of Andreas Potens still seeks further support for this repeal. We are also in the beginnings of a telegram campaign, and would also take any suggestions for how to conduct one effeciently.
The text of the repeal is as follows:
Repeal "Legalise Euthanasia"
A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution
Category: Repeal
Resolution: #43
Proposed by: Andreas Potens
Description: UN Resolution #43: Legalise Euthanasia (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Strong) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.
Argument: 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 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)?
Again, if any of the ambassadors present have a suggestion for how to conduct an efficient telegram campaign, please do not hesitate to let us know. Thank you for your time.
The text of the repeal is as follows:
Repeal "Legalise Euthanasia"
A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution
Category: Repeal
Resolution: #43
Proposed by: Andreas Potens
Description: UN Resolution #43: Legalise Euthanasia (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Strong) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.
Argument: 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 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)?
Again, if any of the ambassadors present have a suggestion for how to conduct an efficient telegram campaign, please do not hesitate to let us know. Thank you for your time.