NationStates Jolt Archive

This is my repeal:

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

Argument: RECOGNISES that it can be painful to die slowly.

ALSO RECOGNISES that it is often painful for those close to someone to watch them in extreme pain and when they are suffering.

NOTES that it allows for next of kin to sign the required forms if the person conserned is incapacitated.

FURTHER NOTES that this could be wrong in various situations:

a) when the next of kin stands to gain considerably by the person concerned's dying and this influences them into making a decision that may not be in the best interests of the person;

b) and when the person conserned is suffering from depression, and is diagnosed with a serious illness, like cancer for example. The person could recover, but their depression may cause them to decide to be killed, even though depression is treatable and the illness may be curable.

NOTES that this resolution is very vague about certain points, and that this leaves it open to interpretation that may not be in the patients best interests. ESPECIALLY NOTES that people can awaken from comas long after 5-10 years, and that being in a coma actually causes no suffering to the actual patient

NOTES that it is an issue that is very complex, and cannot be catered for adequately on a global scale. Nations may chose to keep Euthanasia lagalised, and allows them to set their own paramaters for the application of euthanasia.

DECLARES that NSUN Resolution #43 be repealed.

Approvals: 0

Status: Lacking Support (requires 126 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Wed Jan 4 2006




I would like your support in this very tricky issue.

Doesn't look bad. I'd like to see a replacement, though. There are some cases where euthanasia is necessary, such as when a patient is in extreme pain.

A replacement would be possible. Preferrably on the local level rather than global though. I don't think his argument is sovereignty though, so I'm not sure if he want's a suitable replacement or not.

any replacement in my view would need to consider the rights of the indivual.

The practice of a 'living will' is known and could be used as the basis for a replacement proposal.

The Empire would support a repeal attempt if there was a practical replacement idea lined up.

If one thing above many is to be modified in the old Legalize Euthanasia resolution, it is the safeguards placed towards Voluntary Active Euthanasia (VAE) and Physician-Assisted Suicide (PAS). VAE and PAS are only effective if there is legislation that protects against coercion (direct and indirect), lack of autonomy, lack of competency, and provides thorough understanding.

This is my repeal:

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

Argument: RECOGNISES that it can be painful to die slowly.

ALSO RECOGNISES that it is often painful for those close to someone to watch them in extreme pain and when they are suffering.

Very good start

NOTES that it allows for next of kin to sign the required forms if the person conserned is incapacitated.

NOTES that you use NOTES a lot throughout the proposal. The only reason I bring it up here rather than later is I think this would be the easiest place to change it.

Also, NOTING I feel works better than NOTES in general

FURTHER NOTES that this could be wrong in various situations:

....meh

a) when the next of kin stands to gain considerably by the person concerned's dying and this influences them into making a decision that may not be in the best interests of the person;

This is an issue.....but I abstain on thinking one way or the other (I believe a man has every right to request himself be euthanised - active or passive - as I believe it's their choice.....but when it comes to others making that choice....I cringe a bit)

b) and when the person conserned is suffering from depression, and is diagnosed with a serious illness, like cancer for example. The person could recover, but their depression may cause them to decide to be killed, even though depression is treatable and the illness may be curable.

Don't give a damn. There's also people who end up bed-strapped for the rest of their lives. There are those who are more afraid of life than they are of death and many who complain about these things, I feel, are either, themselves, afraid of death or afraid of losing people around them to death. I think anyone who has come to the conclusion it's their time to go - whether it be through cowardice or....for a lack of a better term....fate, it is their right and I don't agree it should be taken away, no matter what the contribution they COULD make. If we want to start arguing the contributions people COULD make to society, then we can start openning the door on death penalty, public executions, heck - even incarceration or psychiatric therapy (you can actually make some rather good cases for such things about the contributions people COULD make to society if we didn't have these policies....though we also start talking about various other societal issues while we're at it).

NOTES that this resolution is very vague about certain points, and that this leaves it open to interpretation that may not be in the patients best interests.

Agreed and I do believe that there are many cases where it needs to be considered.

ESPECIALLY NOTES that people can awaken from comas long after 5-10 years, and that being in a coma actually causes no suffering to the actual patient

At extraordinary cost and often to the result of vegetables waking up rather than "people". Definately will not support this repeal so long as this line remains in here.

NOTES that it is an issue that is very complex, and cannot be catered for adequately on a global scale. Nations may chose to keep Euthanasia lagalised, and allows them to set their own paramaters for the application of euthanasia.

That second sentance is REALLY touchy as it just barely skims the question of "legislating in a repeal" (which is illegal). I think it would probably be better written as "This repeal does not prevent nations from keeping Euthanasia legalised and allows/permits them to set their own regulations for the application of euthanasia". I also have an issue with application but I can't think of a good replacement word for it.

DECLARES that NSUN Resolution #43 be repealed.

Fair enough

Approvals: 0

Status: Lacking Support (requires 126 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Wed Jan 4 2006

Status: Unsupported by myself.
Potential status: deleted for legislating in a repeal. However, I admit that the probability of this I'd place at about 20%. It's very minor and it really depends on how one is reading it.

I would like your support in this very tricky issue.

Meh

Thank you for this analysis. I am particularly interested in some points you made. I will amend certain points if this doesn't pass the vote this time (if it gets there at all)

Just out of interest, are you actually a mod. It's just that your comments about deletion suggests that you could be.

Oh, and I don't understand what is wrong with using the same words, like 'NOTES' more than once. Surely this is supposed to be clear and concise and not a literary work of art.

I do understand that this is an issue that won't have universal support. Maybe that is a reason why the original act should be repealed, although it is not a reason to me.

Thank you for this analysis. I am particularly interested in some points you made. I will amend certain points if this doesn't pass the vote this time (if it gets there at all)

Just out of interest, are you actually a mod. It's just that your comments about deletion suggests that you could be.

No - if I was a mod, I would've actually decided whether to delete it and taken action rather than saying "it might be illegal". I'm giving my personal analysis and that includes indicating any reason it could possibly be illegal (and therefore, prone to deletion)

Oh, and I don't understand what is wrong with using the same words, like 'NOTES' more than once. Surely this is supposed to be clear and concise and not a literary work of art.

You need to be able to sell it to those who are voting on it. No it doesn't have to be a great literary work, but if you use NOTES several times in a row, it gets annoying. Annoying the voters isn't exactly the smartest idea.

I do understand that this is an issue that won't have universal support. Maybe that is a reason why the original act should be repealed, although it is not a reason to me.

If such a thing is a reason to repeal any resolution, then ALL resolutions should be repealed. Even the most popular got something like 94% of the vote.

You know what I meant. Please do not be pedantic. Anyway, this is a repeal and not a resolution. All it does is undo what has already been done. It does not legislate anything else, so it doesn't matter whether or not you agree with my arguments. If you believe that Euthanasia should be banned, then you will need to vote for this repeal anyway, because you can't ban it in the UN until this has been removed. That is not what I believe, but I am sure that there are some of you who do.

Historically, attempts to repeal 'Legalise Euthanasia' have been very poorly drafted and dependent on a moral framework that is questionable at best. This is unfortunate, as said resolution is very poor indeed but it is not Ecopoeian policy to support repeals that are as ill-conceived as the resolution under attack. Thankfully, this repeal shows some promise. I encourage you to give careful thought to the suggestions made by Forgottenlord.

Regarding a replacement... no, I would not support such a move. Though euthanasia is legal in Ecopoeia, some of our comunities would seek to change this given the opportunity and I sympathise with their position. I don't believe an unanswerable case has been made for euthanasia (though I do tentatively support it), so while I am glad the option will remain available in some areas of Ecopoeia, it would discomfort me to see the UN enforce all nations to be compliant.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

It does not legislate anything else, so it doesn't matter whether or not you agree with my arguments.

I disagree. A lot of us care what the UN's law books say, even the parts that don't say anything, because the quality of the resolutions we pass reflects on us as a body. For instance, I don't want to see the UN legislating on the basis of religion, so I wouldn't support a repeal of the United Nations Security Act which said "Murder is sin, so the UN must not be seen to condone the stockpiling and use of lethal weaponry, even in self-defence", even though I want the UNSA repealed.

From a practical standpoint, you have to recognise that a lot of UN members feel the same way, and if you want their votes, you can't just dismiss this concern - you need to write the repeal in such a way as to appeal to voters.