NationStates Jolt Archive

For the last two weeks or so I have been trying to push a repeal of Resolution #43 "Legalise Euthanasia". Every time it has failed to acheive quorum, I have revised it and re-submitted it. It gets a few more approvals each time as, through the revision, it gets better. At this stage I feel I have a proposal which I think is in a state fit to be approved for Resolution.

_____________________
Repeal "Legalise Euthanasia"

A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution


Category: Repeal


Resolution: #43


Proposed by: New kLemon

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

Argument: INSISTING that the legalisation of Euthanasia is something that should be decided upon by each nation's government for themselves, not enacted by a UN resolution,

DISPUTING the standing of resolution #43 as a good resolution because it does not set standards or restrictions outlining which situations are suitable for euthanasia and which ones are not, nor does it set guideline as to who's choice it becomes if the patient is unable to decide,

ARUGUING that legalised euthinasia with no restrictions can be a very dangerous thing for elderly, very ill, or terminally ill people who do not want to be euthanised, yet have doctors or families who think euthanasia would be best for them,

ARGUING that resolution #43 is nothing more than an emotive, story-telling resolution that deserves to be repealed,

INFORMING the UN that resolution #43 was a controversial proposal/resolution, and many UN members felt so strongly over the issue they threatened to leave the UN if the resolution passed*,

and ALSO INFORMING the UN that resolution #43 was passed by a very small margin of votes and should now be brought to reconsideration.

REPEALS Resolution #43 "Legalise Euthanasia".

*The debate over #43 can be found at http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=304622 - Link found thanks to NSwiki
_________________________________

If you have suggestions for improvement please let me know!
If you agree with my propoal please help me rally support for it.

Just a few spelling and grammar points for the moment:

DISPUTING the standing of resolution #43 as a good resolution because it does not set standards or restrictions outlining which situations are suitable for euthanasia and which ones are not, nor does it set guideline as to who's choice it becomes if the patient is unable to decide,
guidelines, whose

ARUGUING that legalised euthinasia with no restrictions can be a very dangerous thing for elderly, very ill, or terminally ill people who do not want to be euthanised, yet have doctors or families who think euthanasia would be best for them,
euthanasia

I'm not sure how many times we've said this...but please post it here before submitting it so any mistakes like that can be fixed. What goes out needs to be perfect.

I've corrected the mistakes in my own copy - It will go out as a revised proposal if this one fails (it probably will).

As it is right now, The Federation of Zorinia would be willing to at least consider it and its effects.

Although the government of St Edmund does think that the legality [or otherwise] of euthanasia should be determined at the national level we suspect that your proposal using this as its first argument might not be considered acceptable by the Mods... and feel that some of your other arguments, in the clauses just before the 'REPEALS' one, are a bit too nitpicky about how the resolution was passed for our liking: We have consequently decided against approving your proposal.

The UN resolution does NOT enforce euthanasia, it merely permits it -- that is to say, makes it illegal to strike down attempts to legalize it via each nation's legislative process in nations within the UN. It mandates that the several nations allow euthanasia legislation to pass SHOULD A LAW PERMITTING IT COME TO A VOTE.

In fact, this is what most UN resolutions regarding controversial topics do. Legalizing abortion, for example, does NOT force nations to create abortion laws. It forces them to permit the passage of laws which go through the current legislative process and pass -- thereby representing the nominal will of the people. If such a law were passed by legislators who voted against their constituents' clear wishes, the contituency would have only to recall the politician (or vote in a replacement should it be near an election already) and repeal that law.

It's much like the RL US Supreme Court with regard to burning the US flag. When the Court declared that act Consitutionally protected freedom of expression, it did NOT mean that everyone would be FORCED to burn flags (as it seemed to be perceived in certain circles). It merely meant that you weren't allowed to jail or injure anyone who did.

As such, there is no need for this repeal as it's being presented. If you're repealing based solely on bad or colloquial wording (as the recent Scientific Freedom repeal was), you'll have a stronger case.

The UN resolution does NOT enforce euthanasia, it merely permits it -- that is to say, makes it illegal to strike down attempts to legalize it via each nation's legislative process in nations within the UN. It mandates that the several nations allow euthanasia legislation to pass SHOULD A LAW PERMITTING IT COME TO A VOTE.

In fact, this is what most UN resolutions regarding controversial topics do. Legalizing abortion, for example, does NOT force nations to create abortion laws. It forces them to permit the passage of laws which go through the current legislative process and pass -- thereby representing the nominal will of the people. If such a law were passed by legislators who voted against their constituents' clear wishes, the contituency would have only to recall the politician (or vote in a replacement should it be near an election already) and repeal that law.

It's much like the RL US Supreme Court with regard to burning the US flag. When the Court declared that act Consitutionally protected freedom of expression, it did NOT mean that everyone would be FORCED to burn flags (as it seemed to be perceived in certain circles). It merely meant that you weren't allowed to jail or injure anyone who did.

This is a false analogy. According to your flag analogy, it would be illegal to jail anyone who performed euthanasia, but you wouldn't be forced to perform euthanasia. But above, you say that it isn't forcing a law on euthanasia. The USSC didn't create a law, but it did legalize flag burning.

I also don't follow your argument... you can't stop a law legalizing it from passing. Does this mean that if the extreme libertarian independent junior member introduced a bill even though popular opinion was against it that it would pass, and this would be "the will of the people"? The UN requires these things are made legal if it mandates they must be legal... it doesn't stop people from voting against legislation. More properly, UN legislation prevents going against it; it would stop attempts to illegalize it, but wouldn't stop people from preventing pro-[issue] legislation from going through.

The UN resolution does NOT enforce euthanasia, it merely permits it -- that is to say, makes it illegal to strike down attempts to legalize it via each nation's legislative process in nations within the UN. It mandates that the several nations allow euthanasia legislation to pass SHOULD A LAW PERMITTING IT COME TO A VOTE.

In fact, this is what most UN resolutions regarding controversial topics do. Legalizing abortion, for example, does NOT force nations to create abortion laws. It forces them to permit the passage of laws which go through the current legislative process and pass -- thereby representing the nominal will of the people. If such a law were passed by legislators who voted against their constituents' clear wishes, the contituency would have only to recall the politician (or vote in a replacement should it be near an election already) and repeal that law.

It's much like the RL US Supreme Court with regard to burning the US flag. When the Court declared that act Consitutionally protected freedom of expression, it did NOT mean that everyone would be FORCED to burn flags (as it seemed to be perceived in certain circles). It merely meant that you weren't allowed to jail or injure anyone who did.

As such, there is no need for this repeal as it's being presented. If you're repealing based solely on bad or colloquial wording (as the recent Scientific Freedom repeal was), you'll have a stronger case.I've said something like this in the past about permissive and restrictive legislation.

Although the government of St Edmund does think that the legality [or otherwise] of euthanasia should be determined at the national level we suspect that your proposal using this as its first argument might not be considered acceptable by the Mods... and feel that some of your other arguments, in the clauses just before the 'REPEALS' one, are a bit too nitpicky about how the resolution was passed for our liking: We have consequently decided against approving your proposal.

Personally, I think thats a poor reason to oppose an proposal that presents an argument you agree with.

I think I'd like to support this resolution. I agree that nations should decide on this, and the whole thing about someone else deciding for a euthanasia "prospect", if you will, just sets me off.