NationStates Jolt Archive

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

Argument: REALISING that occasions will happen when death seems an easier path to people who are in pain or dying (or both),

AFFIRMING that all life is precious and should not be thrown away lightly,

PRESENTING the point that unrestriced legal euthinasia can be used by doctors who can't be bothered with a patient or by families who have no time for their sick relatives,

SUGGESTING that resolution #43 does not set standards or restrictions outlining which situations are suitable for euthanasia (such as a patient being brain-dead) and which ones are not ,

REQUESTING for these reasons that the UN repeal resolution #43 and make euthanasia illegal.

Endnote: This resolution is written with the hope that euthanasia may stay illegal, but leaves an opening in the future to further proposals to be written if the majority of the UN feel that euthanasia should be legal again.

______________________________________________________________
Delegates please give this proposal your approval! At time of posting it still needs 108 more before Tuesday.

I approved it, but only because I noticed the wording of euthanisia can result in doctors doing what is outlined here.

REQUESTING for these reasons that the UN repeal resolution #43 and make euthanasia illegal.
This clause is illegal - you can't introduce new legislation in a repeal (repealing a resolution that makes euthanasia legal does not actually make euthanasia illegal - this would require a second resolution).

This clause is illegal - you can't introduce new legislation in a repeal (repealing a resolution that makes euthanasia legal does not actually make euthanasia illegal - this would require a second resolution).

Just needs to be changed to read: "REPEALS Resolution #43."

No

The Forgotten Territories believes that every person has the right to decide when to die.

The Forgotten Territories will also staunchly oppose any attempts to make all forms of euthanasia illegal as that would include the right to refuse treatment - something else that we feel should be an unrevokable right

The Forgotten Territories will not support any attempted repeal unless it is specifically for addressing the failings of UNR #43, not because it takes a decidedly anti-euthanasia position on the matter.

The Federal Republic supports a repeal of Resolution #43, though this draft requires substantial work. "Legalise Euthanasia" is an embarrassment; not only does it read like an opinion article in a high-school newspaper, and not a resolution of force, it directly contradicts itself. In a particularly offensive clause, this bill states that euthanasia should be legalized because carers shouldn't have to "use up their time on those certain to die," while authorizing the euthanization of patients who are only in commas, or are otherwise not in danger of "certain death." Resolution #43 is also ridiculously broad in scope, allowing family members and doctors to put patients down, with very few guidelines or restrictions to prevent abuse -- thus extending well beyond "the patient's right to die." If the drafting process here produces an article worthy of our support, we will urge delegates to approve it for vote.

This clause is illegal - you can't introduce new legislation in a repeal (repealing a resolution that makes euthanasia legal does not actually make euthanasia illegal - this would require a second resolution).

I realised that after I put the proposal forward, but I am sure it doesn't matter as this clause appears in the argument section of the proposal and not the description part. To clarify: If passed, this proposal will only repeal Resolution #43.

If this proposal fails I will submit another one without the error.

The Federal Republic supports a repeal of Resolution #43, though this draft requires substantial work. "Legalise Euthanasia" is an embarrassment; not only does it read like an opinion article in a high-school newspaper, and not a resolution of force, it directly contradicts itself. In a particularly offensive clause, this bill states that euthanasia should be legalized because carers shouldn't have to "use up their time on those certain to die," while authorizing the euthanization of patients who are only in commas, or are otherwise not in danger of "certain death." Resolution #43 is also ridiculously broad in scope, allowing family members and doctors to put patients down, with very few guidelines or restrictions to prevent abuse -- thus extending well beyond "the patient's right to die." If the drafting process here produces an article worthy of our support, we will urge delegates to approve it for vote.

Any help or advice given on improving this propsal would be greatly appreciated.

I have posted a revised proposal without the endnote, and correcting the illegal clause. A spelling mistake had also been corrected:

Revised Proposal

REALISING that occasions will happen when death seems an easier path to people who are in pain or dying (or both),

AFFIRMING that all human life is precious and should not be thrown away lightly,

PRESENTING the point that unrestricted legal euthinasia can be used by doctors who can't be bothered with a patient or by families who have no time for their sick relatives,

SUGGESTING that resolution #43 does not set standards or restrictions outlining which situations are suitable for euthanasia (such as a patient being brain-dead) and which ones are not,

REQUESTING for these reasons that the UN repeal resolution #43 "Legalise Euthanasia".

By proposing a repeal, you are requesting the UN repeal the resolution. The final clause should simply read: "REPEALS Resolution #43 "Legalise Euthanasia."

I support this because windurst firlimy belives in life of all types. Legalise Eutanasia is nothing more then like stated 1 person's opion and reads more like a news paper artical then a proposal thus in our veiw not even a real resulotion. We also frown upon the mention of God in the said resulotion because we feel the churc hand government should not interfear with each other in anyway. Well anyway if this hits the floor i'm behind it 100%

I too feel that to deny someone their right to die is wrong. Although perhaps a re-draft of resolutin #43 is in order to prevent misuse of Euthenasia, one must acknowledge that if given a choice between a month of horrible suffering, or dying with dignity the next day, someone should be granted the right to die and end their suffering. As well, Euthanasia for vegetative people should very much be protected. A person in a vegetative state is dead, they are not alive. Yes their bodies funtion, but they do not think, they do not act, they do not feel. It is the firm beleif of myself and my fellow Dancing Bananalanders that once a person enters a vegetative state, and there is no way to bring them out of it, they are dead. Of course, this does not apply to comas. Vegetative states and comas are radically different, as no matter how long a person is in a coma, or how severe it is, there is braint activity, and the person is alive, and is in fact thinking. (just to clear that up to provent any ill-conceived arguments).

Oh dear.

REALISING that occasions will happen when death seems an easier path to people who are in pain or dying (or both),Fair enough.AFFIRMING that all human life is precious and should not be thrown away lightly,Who said it should be thrown away lightly?

PRESENTING the point that unrestricted legal euthinasia can be used by doctors who can't be bothered with a patient or by families who have no time for their sick relatives,Shame thats irrelevant and does not fit with the resolution. The resolutions says 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.

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.

In other words, the doctor has no power to decide, but merely to advise. The premise of this point is faulty.

SUGGESTING that resolution #43 does not set standards or restrictions outlining which situations are suitable for euthanasia (such as a patient being brain-dead) and which ones are not,It does set some, but it doesn't need to set any. Why should we be qualified to decide given it is impossible for anyone who has not been in that situation to be able to make choices for people who have?

REQUESTING for these reasons that the UN repeal resolution #43 "Legalise Euthanasia".The strongest reasons in this repeal are faulty, thus I oppose.

I'm not Legalise Euthanasia's biggest fan (based solely on it's presentation rather than it's spirit), but I'm not about to support a repeal of it anytime soon.

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/bowel.jpg

I dunno, Hirota

Oh dear.
Shame thats irrelevant and does not fit with the resolution. The resolutions says 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.

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.

In other words, the doctor has no power to decide, but merely to advise. The premise of this point is faulty.
Not necessarily. The resolution gives the patient the right to decide, yes, but this ignores the tremendous pressures on someone in this situation. The doctor is generally someone to whom a person will give extraordinary credence. The family of the person in question can fundamentally change their choice through pressuring them repeatedly, demeaning them, etc. While it is the person's decision, it can be unduly influenced by the doctor's advice and the family of the patient. That said, I do not believe this point is faulty.

Legalize Euthanasia is an unfortunate badly written resolution that needs to be repealed and replaced with something that actually does the job rather than tells a story. This repeal does that job perfectly fine.

Not necessarily. The resolution gives the patient the right to decide, yes, but this ignores the tremendous pressures on someone in this situation. The doctor is generally someone to whom a person will give extraordinary credence. The family of the person in question can fundamentally change their choice through pressuring them repeatedly, demeaning them, etc. While it is the person's decision, it can be unduly influenced by the doctor's advice and the family of the patient.That can happen with absolutely anything in most walks of life. However, if a medical practioner is being so unprofessional to resort to intimidation, I'd hope a hospital would have procedures in place to resolve.That said, I do not believe this point is faulty.ThanksLegalize Euthanasia is an unfortunate badly written resolution that needs to be repealed and replaced with something that actually does the job rather than tells a story. This repeal does that job perfectly fine.It's not great, but I'm concerned about any possible alternative which further undermines individuals rights to bodily self-determination.

It's an interesting situation we have here. Anti-Euthanasiasts want to repeal resolution #43. It appears that so do most Pro-Euthanasiasts, because resolution #43 is badly written. We both want the effect that this Repeal resolution will do. The pro-euthanasiasts can feel free to write a better euthanasia proposal after this repeal if they like, but for now let's team up and repeal the current one!

I think the "pro-euthanists" are afraid of a Euthanasia Legality Convention following a repeal.

As they should be.

I think the "pro-euthanists" are afraid of a Euthanasia Legality Convention following a repeal.
1. Incorrect term. Not yours, I grant, but incorrect term.
2. Afraid? No. Concerned that it may be replaced by a bigger load of tripe? Yes. Concerned that it may be replaced by a load of tripe that fails to recognise bodily self-determination as a fundamental human right? Concerned that it may be replaced by a load of tripe that fails to recognise the reality of the situation? Absolutely. Concerned that it will be replaced by a load of tripe aimed at ensuring those least qualified are responsible? Definitely.
3.Hoping that there is another absolutely huge flaw bigger than a aircraft carrier within any proposed tripe in a similar way to its recently passed predecessor tripe? Absolutely.
4 I do wonder if those who might be considering a draft will actually have the stomach and decency to put it out to general review at the draft process, rather than cowering behind closed doors.

"yes"
My point exactly.

EDIT: As for the snip about ALC, had you bothered to actually think for a second, you'd have realized it was drafted on an open forum.

My point exactly.What a suprise - making a one line throwaway comment with no benefit to anything or anyone that fails to contribute or answer.

Same...old...story. Try being original. Try communicating. Try being positive.EDIT: As for the snip about ALC, had you bothered to actually think for a second, you'd have realized it was drafted on an open forum.Semantics. 99.9% of the UN membership has no knowledge of the url for the "open" forum.

"But Mr Dent, the plans have been available in the local planning office for the last nine month."

"Oh yes, well as soon as I heard I went straight round to see them, yesterday afternoon. You hadn't exactly gone out of your way to call attention to them, had you? I mean, like actually telling anybody or anything."

"But the plans were on display ..."

"On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them."

"That's the display department."

"With a flashlight."

"Ah, well the lights had probably gone."

"So had the stairs."

"But look, you found the notice didn't you?"

"Yes," said Arthur, "yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'.

99.9% of the UN membership has no knowledge of the url for the "open" forum.99% of the UN Membership hardly knows about this forum.

Thats still .9% more ;)

Wah, wah...boldily self-determination...wah, wah...

Wah, wah...boldily self-determination...wah, wah...What a suprise - making a one line throwaway comment with no benefit to anything or anyone that fails to contribute or answer.

Same...old...story. Try being original. Try communicating. Try being positive.

Try doing something other than using this debate to take a swipe at an unrelated resolution.

Try doing something other than using this debate to take a swipe at an unrelated resolution.I didn't try and imply a relationship - Someone else did. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10611989&postcount=17)

Secondly, I’m not taking a swipe at any specific resolution per se. I’m taking a (second) swipe at a trend certain people seem to have adopted. Not NatSov, but a pattern of dismissive, negative, borderline flaming one-liners from certain people, which fail to accomplish anything. I’m taking about efforts to implement negative legislation, and indulge in unconstructive debate. I’m talking about a wave of swearing from certain people who arrogantly and ignorantly dismiss opinions contrary to their own.

There is a school of thought which says if you cannot say anything nice, then don’t say nothing at all. If certain people followed that, their posts would number in the hundreds, not the thousands.

OOC (unfortunately, because I try to keep this sort of thing IC): Hirota, post-count matters not. Yes, mine is among the higher of UN forum regulars, but I have no life. I don't judge people based on their post-count, and that means I'm willing to take someone with very few posts seriously, and disregard someone with lots. I agree with you about being positive, but what could I possibly add here?

The OP suggested everyone should unite over the repeal, because both sides could objectively agree #43 was bad. I was countering that with a relevant example, showing that some people might oppose a repeal because they feared having a blocking proposal passed. Powerhungry Chipmunks had a national rights proposal on this; I have a draft repeal of #43, and if I tried it, I would attempt a blocking proposal after it (a draft of which I would post here).

About the ALC: I was never opposed to posting it on Jolt. Do you remember who submitted it? Not me - the Kenny UN Mission. Because I couldn't submit it - I was afk that weekend (meaning my post-count took a dip oh noes :(). I didn't have time to post on Jolt. But the idea that this was somehow 'covert' is simply silly, given that another NSO member, and me, the author of the resolution, warned Waterana prior to submission that we would be submitting it, and that she should aim to get hers in first. I think timezones worked against her, in that case.

So, I don't really see what I could possibly have added. I refuse to stick to the "if you don't have anything positive to say, don't say it" line. If I oppose something, I'll criticise it. If I support it, I'll make positive comments. I seem to recall making what I felt were positive comments on several of your drafts. Here I was just popping in to correct an assumption about motives for supporting the repeal; I deliberately didn't comment on the text of the repeal because I felt I couldn't add anything constructive. But if you object to someone's one-line post, don't read, or scroll past it. It won't take long.

IC: The Gruenberger UN Office will not be adapting its policies of seeking to comment on as much legislation submitted for draft approval as possible, as we believe the UN should be an organ for international cooperation, and would that our views are heard, and not silenced.

Hirota, this is an issue I think we might want to discuss in a different thread. There's a lot to talk about and it's something you probably should bring to the attention of the UN at large, rather than just those reading the less-than-probable Euthanasia repeal (not that very many want to look at Euthanasia)

OOC (unfortunately, because I try to keep this sort of thing IC): Hirota, post-count matters not. Yes, mine is among the higher of UN forum regulars, but I have no life. I don't judge people based on their post-count, and that means I'm willing to take someone with very few posts seriously, and disregard someone with lots. I agree with you about being positive, but what could I possibly add here?Noble sentiments, sadly that is not the trend I see.The OP suggested everyone should unite over the repeal, because both sides could objectively agree #43 was bad. I was countering that with a relevant example, showing that some people might oppose a repeal because they feared having a blocking proposal passed. Powerhungry Chipmunks had a national rights proposal on this; I have a draft repeal of #43, and if I tried it, I would attempt a blocking proposal after it (a draft of which I would post here).I’m reassured that you would post a draft on here for consideration.About the ALC: I was never opposed to posting it on Jolt. Do you remember who submitted it? Not me - the Kenny UN Mission.And it’s at this point I should accept I am using a very broad brush when it comes to some of the observations. Don’t think that everything I said was directed at you personally. But the idea that this was somehow 'covert' is simply silly, given that another NSO member, and me, the author of the resolution, warned Waterana prior to submission that we would be submitting it, and that she should aim to get hers in first. I think timezones worked against her, in that case.It was covert because it was not submitted on here for consideration in draft form. You could tell a select few about it, but that doesn’t mean it was overt – the only way to bring about true transparency in the resolution writing process is to give the opportunity to the remainder of the UN membership who do read jolt. I know most proposals are written completely apart from jolt, but the regulars on here should know better.I refuse to stick to the "if you don't have anything positive to say, don't say it" line. If I oppose something, I'll criticise it.It’s not your opposition that is the issue, it is how you (and yes I do mean you, as well as one or two others) fail to make constructive criticism. Instead there is a tendancy to smack it down without trying to explain the reasoning. I feel there is normally something positive about any given proposal. In this example on this topic, I said the premise was faulty, explained why, and included positives (it is well written, for example).

I feel the regulars on here have a strong responsibility to nurture new UN members, who may have the potential to go on to become regulars in their own right. It’s depressing how often a regular will bash down someone who recently enters the forums – that’s not just the list of nations I have mentally jotted down, but others too.If I support it, I'll make positive comments. I seem to recall making what I felt were positive comments on several of your drafts.You did, that’s quite right, and they were appreciated.Here I was just popping in to correct an assumption about motives for supporting the repeal; I deliberately didn't comment on the text of the repeal because I felt I couldn't add anything constructive. But if you object to someone's one-line post, don't read, or scroll past it. It won't take long.Your single line comment in itself was unconstructive. Threatening ALC mk2 is not constructive. What did it achieve really?IC: The Gruenberger UN Office will not be adapting its policies of seeking to comment on as much legislation submitted for draft approval as possible, as we believe the UN should be an organ for international cooperation, and would that our views are heard, and not silenced.Quite right. We welcome the idea that all views should be heard, and not silenced. Nor should they be ridiculed.

It was covert because it was not submitted on here for consideration in draft form. You could tell a select few about it, but that doesn’t mean it was overt – the only way to bring about true transparency in the resolution writing process is to give the opportunity to the remainder of the UN membership who do read jolt. I know most proposals are written completely apart from jolt, but the regulars on here should know better.
Did you not read anything I wrote? I just said I didn't have time to post it on Jolt. Ok. I'll say it again.

I didn't have time to post it on Jolt.

Had we had a week, and not had to submit it the moment the repeal passed, I would gladly have posted it on Jolt. But I didn't have time.

It’s not your opposition that is the issue, it is how you (and yes I do mean you, as well as one or two others) fail to make constructive criticism. Instead there is a tendancy to smack it down without trying to explain the reasoning. I feel there is normally something positive about any given proposal. In this example on this topic, I said the premise was faulty, explained why, and included positives (it is well written, for example).
Linked examples please.

Threatening ALC mk2 is not constructive. What did it achieve really?
Nothing. Coincidentally, it wasn't trying to achieve anything. It wasn't a 'threat': it was an explanation.

OP: everyone should support this, because if it's repealed, they can replace it
Me: ah, but they're afraid a block, instead of a replacement, might be passed

That was it. No threat, no agenda, no nothing. Just a simple explanation of a presumed voting trend.

Try actually reading what I write; again, as it's always so short and empty, it won't take long.

And who gives a yak's ass where a proposal was drafted? So sorry if it wasn't run by certain people here first. I hate to tell you, but input from the general UN assembly is not a prerequisite for the drafting and submission of a proposal.

Did you not read anything I wrote? I just said I didn't have time to post it on Jolt. Ok. I'll say it again.

I didn't have time to post it on Jolt.

Had we had a week, and not had to submit it the moment the repeal passed, I would gladly have posted it on Jolt. But I didn't have time.I know you were away at the time of submission. But like you said, you had a week. You might have had a newcomer pop on and make a startling revelation which resolved everything.
Moreover, Waterana was able to publish his draft (admittedly a republication), and also was in discussion on here – with some of the movers behind the alternative if I recall.Linked examples please. You are not the biggest offender I can see. But there are a few
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10563608&postcount=2
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10611988&postcount=116

Like I said, everyone is guilty of it to an extent (including Hirota). Th only nation I cannot recall thinking they were harsh was Ausserland.
Nothing. Coincidentally, it wasn't trying to achieve anything. It wasn't a 'threat': it was an explanation.It was a threat. You actually said

OP: everyone should support this, because if it's repealed, they can replace it
Me: ah, but they're afraid a block, instead of a replacement, might be passed. And they should be

Say the first bit? No problem, it’s just restating what I alluded to in the post before. Add the second bit and it’s a different kettle of fish.Try actually reading what I write; again,I am reading it, which is why I’m disagreeing with you. It might be that what you are trying to say is not the same as what I am reading as it's always so short and empty, it won't take long.It tends to be, but I’m glad you’ve taken the time out to deviate a little from the perceived Modus operandi and engage in discussion which lasts more than a single line.

...I’m glad you’ve taken the time out to deviate a little from the perceived Modus operandi and engage in discussion which lasts more than a single line.

Sometimes it's simply not necessary to make a longwinded or ping-pong post.

And who gives a yak's ass where a proposal was drafted? So sorry if it wasn't run by certain people here first. I hate to tell you, but input from the general UN assembly is not a prerequisite for the drafting and submission of a proposal.It's called good practice. We encourage people to do so on here regularly, and the "regulars" should know better. How many times does a newcomer post a request for endorsements, only for someone to point out it is desirable to post a copy of the proposal on here? How often do we make suggestions, observations, and urges to make changes to a proposal, so when it comes to a rewrite, the UN has had the opportunity to review the draft and provide good quality input?

I happen to believe that the greater the readership in a review process, the broader a consensus, the broader the range of inputs and perspectives, the better the proposal.

Is it compulsory? Hardly. Is it desirable? Certainly. Is important that regulars set good examples? Definately.

A good example of how to set an example is to refrain from swearing or sarcasm. Another good example is to write positively, constructively, helpfully, and supportively.

Sometimes it's simply not necessary to make a longwinded or ping-pong post.Sometimes it isn't. Sometimes it's not necessary to make negative posts either.

Considering that there was a point during the ALC fallout that I was thinking "should we get a draft for potential replacements for every single resolution in place", Gruen's comment is far from out of line. Possibly every repeal that comes up, there will probably always be a "are they going to put a block in place" sitting back there. And there's amazing amounts of reason to argue that as a problem. ALC was a fairly simple and straight foreward proposal. It's biggest hole is that it's a moral decency proposal - and the clauses that are associated with that. Outside that, it's all "which side do you support", something that I had been rallying for with my attempted repeal.

ALC I was more disturbed by the capacity of the proposal than I was about the fact that it was drafted off-site - for the very reason Gruen mentioned: they were racing the clock. In many ways, I did the same thing with my attempted repeal, working it out in 3 days. It ended up never even being posted on Jolt because I was just looking to gun it through as fast as possible, see what happened. That didn't work nearly as well as I had hoped, but alas....

I might get burned for this statement, but IMO, a NatSov blocker takes significantly less time to draft than a full out resolution. They have to look at area of effect, arguments, and attack points. Non-blockers have the extra luxury of loopholes and side-effects (NatSov blockers generally ignore side-effects since....well....it's pro-NatSov - all side effects are really just something you didn't think about is now at the national level) and thus take more people and more time to deal with. This is what spooked me.

Yes there is a problem with one-line responses.
Yes there is a problem with snipeing (and actually, I think it's at newbies and vets, both of which do piss me off)
I think these are problems we need to address as a community
And I think this thread is a horrible place to start

I know you were away at the time of submission. But like you said, you had a week. You might have had a newcomer pop on and make a startling revelation which resolved everything.
Moreover, Waterana was able to publish his draft (admittedly a republication), and also was in discussion on here – with some of the movers behind the alternative if I recall.
Waterana drafted her proposal I believe about a year before the repeal came to vote. The idea of NatSov only came to us on about the third day of voting. Several people complained that the repeal would only lead to a more aggressive resolution, as Kenny and I had predicted, and TH said "you might want to do something about this". I looked up an old Powerhungry Chipmunks draft, reworked it, and posted it. That was with, if I recall correctly, about two days to go before the vote finished. We didn't have a week. And a few hours later, I was gone. Stop revising history to try to prove a point. You lost, we won, it's over.

You are not the biggest offender I can see. But there are a few
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10563608&postcount=2
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10611988&postcount=116
I'm sorry, but what? The first proposal I admit my post was short and snippy. But it really was the worst proposal I'd seen. And I added an albeit short 'constructive' comment, in that some of these rights were not afforded to heterosexuals, and so it might be better to focus on anti-discrimination in general. Furthermore, that thread wasn't by the proposal author: it was someone else posting it. In other words, however much constructive criticism I gave, it seemed unlikely it would be acted upon, because the proposal author hadn't bothered to come to Jolt.

The second one was a reply to someone in a thread discussing my proposal. Furthermore, they were the ones offering only criticism, and no helpful suggestions. They have identified a problem - offensive use of landmines - but are they going to do anything about it? Are they bollocks. So I don't see how that example is at all relevant.

Now, don't try to wriggle out. You targetted me: linked examples, or a retraction, please.

It was a threat. You actually said

OP: everyone should support this, because if it's repealed, they can replace it
Me: ah, but they're afraid a block, instead of a replacement, might be passed. And they should be

Say the first bit? No problem, it’s just restating what I alluded to in the post before. Add the second bit and it’s a different kettle of fish.
Again, not a threat. That was in fact to save myself from posting twice, in case he answered "but no one will pass a blocking proposal". I was making the point that not only did they think a block might be passed, but because of comments like that, they knew an attempt would be made.

I think you're reacting to a comment that was actually intended to be helpful - I admit not everything I say is like that, but in this case it is - and wrenching it completely out of context to prove a point. I don't consider that any better than posting a short response to an awful proposal.

I might get burned for this statement, but IMO, a NatSov blocker takes significantly less time to draft than a full out resolution.
I think it depends. UNSA I imagine took a little while. The capital punishment proposals have taken some time. Some of PC's old drafts - the minimum wage one, for example - underwent substantial drafting.

ALC took...15 minutes? I should, actually, have thought more about it. I agree, if the proposal essentially says "nations have the right to do x", it's not going to take long. But I think it varies a bit, depending on the subject matter, and the overall motive for the proposal. Something directly blocking something specific is probably quicker than a general, more vague one.

Yes there is a problem with one-line responses.
Yes there is a problem with snipeing (and actually, I think it's at newbies and vets, both of which do piss me off)
I think these are problems we need to address as a community
And I think this thread is a horrible place to start
Agreed.

It's called good practice. We encourage people to do so on here regularly, and the "regulars" should know better. How many times does a newcomer post a request for endorsements, only for someone to point out it is desirable to post a copy of the proposal on here? How often do we make suggestions, observations, and urges to make changes to a proposal, so when it comes to a rewrite, the UN has had the opportunity to review the draft and provide good quality input?

Obviously, such suggestions and observations weren't needed. The proposal passed and is now a resolution.

I happen to believe that the greater the readership in a review process, the broader a consensus, the broader the range of inputs and perspectives, the better the proposal.

Obviously, it had a pretty broad consensus. About 70% of those who cast votes did so in favour of the proposal.

Is it compulsory? Hardly. Is it desirable? Certainly. Is important that regulars set good examples? Definately.

Of course, you would desire to get a look at every proposal before it's submitted. It's not going to happen. That's politics. Get over it.

As for setting good examples, we're not here for that. We're here to conduct UN business. No one here should have the vainglory to pretend to be a "role model" for newcomers.

A good example of how to set an example is to refrain from swearing or sarcasm. Another good example is to write positively, constructively, helpfully, and supportively.

All very warm and fuzzy, but again, I'm not here to give out hugs. I'm here to conduct UN business and represent the people of Cluichstan.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Hirota, FL: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=474005

Let's give New kLemon their thread back.

Waterana drafted her proposal…I stand corrected. Apologies to Waterana…I believe about a year before the repeal came to vote. The idea of NatSov only came to us on about the third day of voting. Several people complained that the repeal would only lead to a more aggressive resolution, as Kenny and I had predicted, and TH said "you might want to do something about this". I looked up an old Powerhungry Chipmunks draft, reworked it, and posted it. That was with, if I recall correctly, about two days to go before the vote finished. We didn't have a week. And a few hours later, I was gone. Stop revising history to try to prove a point.I wasn't - I was using what you told me. If I don't have the full story, what do you expect? You said a week, not three days. Based on a week my response stands.

You lost, we won, it's over.I wouldn't go that far. There is a huge problem with ALC - it’s such a fundamentally huge problem it’s shocking that it has not been considered before.

Once I tinker with how it can be presented (and added to some of the stuff you have already seen), you’ll see it on here. You might even agree with it. I'm sorry, but what? The first proposal I admit my post was short and snippy. But it really was the worst proposal I'd seen.Now, don't try to wriggle out. You targetted me: linked examples, or a retraction, please.I don’t need to. I didn’t target. You asked for examples after I said you could be included in the number, and you’ve accepted an example.

Bearing in mind that the mental list for this particular subject includes almost everyone, you really don’t need to get personally upset by it.Again, not a threat. That was in fact to save myself from posting twice, in case he answered "but no one will pass a blocking proposal". I was making the point that not only did they think a block might be passed, but because of comments like that, they knew an attempt would be made.

I think you're reacting to a comment that was actually intended to be helpful - I admit not everything I say is like that, but in this case it is - and wrenching it completely out of context to prove a point.I say it how I read it. You may not have meant for it to be read that way, or I may be misreading it, but it’s how it comes across to me. And if one person can read it that way, then perhaps others can too.I don't consider that any better than posting a short response to an awful proposal.:) We all have our bugbears. But at least you accept that posting a short response to an awful proposal can be considered poor form. Obviously, such suggestions and observations weren't needed. The proposal passed and is now a resolution.Still doesn’t take away from the points I outlined. Indeed, if it had time, It might have had a response to what I have up my sleve. As for setting good examples, we're not here for that. We're here to conduct UN business. No one here should have the vainglory to pretend to be a "role model" for newcomers.I think rolemodel is too strong a phrase. I prefer thinking of it as working by example. All very warm and fuzzy, but again, I'm not here to give out hugs. I'm here to conduct UN business and represent the people of Cluichstan.Don’t try and equate it with fluffyness. It’s about cultivating and promoting a better UN.

NB – we know you are warm and fuzzy Cluich. It just needs to be coerced out of you.

Hmph, everytime I try and delete this post it hangs. Consider this my last post on this topic on this matter

I'll reply to this in the other thread.

Going back on topic...

Having read the current resolution I'm all for a repeal. Like abortion, euthanasia needs to be a decision for each individual state.
Just the number here on both sides of the debate shows that there can never be a consensus on what a 'good' resoution would be, only that the current resolution is in need of repeal, it is one that satisfies no-one.

Redraft with balance in mind and you have my country's vote.

Ms. Hodgelett Tirith,
Queendom of Randomea

Going back on topic...

Having read the current resolution I'm all for a repeal. Like abortion, euthanasia needs to be a decision for each individual state.
Just the number here on both sides of the debate shows that there can never be a consensus on what a 'good' resoution would be, only that the current resolution is in need of repeal, it is one that satisfies no-one.

Redraft with balance in mind and you have my country's vote.

Ms. Hodgelett Tirith,
Queendom of Randomea

Are you talking about passive or active? Do you think both should be left to the individual nation? I can see some argument for leaving active to the individual nation, but most people fail to understand passive euthanasia. The right to refuse treatment, I feel, should be at uptmost right. Do you believe a doctor has the right to force whatever treatment he/she deems on the patient?

Gruenberg is very pro-euthanasia - we like killing old people, as it's both funny and cost-effective - but we recognise this is a decision best left to the national level: this would extend to both active and passive euthanasia.

The right to refuse treatment is a human right of the patient.

Passive euthanasia on the other hand is a decision made by the doctor, and as such is something also to be determined by the State.
Many would consider it a doctor's duty to do as much as they can and only at the patient or their next of kin's behest can they opt for comfort over treatment.

The right to refuse treatment is a human right of the patient.

Passive euthanasia on the other hand is a decision made by the doctor, and as such is something also to be determined by the State.
Many would consider it a doctor's duty to do as much as they can and only at the patient or their next of kin's behest can they opt for comfort over treatment.

Right to refuse treatment IS passive euthanasia. "Pulling the plug" IS right to refuse treatment. Unless you are saying that a doctor has a right not to perform a life-saving operation without the consent of the patient (which is a whole new world of ****ed, and should, IMO, be barred completely), Passive Euthanasia is EXACTLY the same as Right to Refuse treatment.

No. If I refused to have stitches it is hardly passive euthanasia.

I'm saying a doctor cannot decide "I am not going to treat this patient", they can only make recommendations. Only if the patient or whoever is responsible for the patient says "I do not want this operation/treatment" can the doctor administer palliative care.
So I'm differenciating between the patient's right to withold consent and a doctor's right to do what he/she considers best for the patient - he/she must do all in their power to treat the patient and assume consent unless it is stated it is withheld.*

If a patient has made a statement before treatment that if an accident occurs where a vegetative state is likely then he/she does not wish the doctors to do all they can to keep him/her alive then perhaps that should be allowed - but that also should be left to an individual state to decide.

Edit. * unless of course a Nation decides to have passive euthanasia where a doctor can decide without a patient's consent to stop treatment.

No. If I refused to have stitches it is hardly passive euthanasia.

The representative from Krioval sees the point of the representative from Randomea. At the same time, however, this delegate must insist that passive euthanasia is, for all intents and purposes, refusal to allow treatment. I strongly doubt that anybody is saying the reverse, that refusal to allow treatment in all cases constitutes passive euthanasia.

If this is not the case, I accept the corrections of those holding such views.

Yoshi Takahara
Director, Diplomatic Division
Republic of Krioval