NationStates Jolt Archive

I have drafted a repeal for Resolution #43, the infamous Legalisation of Euthanasia.
Any comments or additions before I drop it into the queue? It's pretty short, but how much do you need to get rid of a really dumb bill?

Edit: Please note that I am making additions to this post, rather than repeatedly posting a new draft.



Repeal of Resolution #43: Legalise Euthanasia


RECOGNIZING that Resolution #43 is a poorly written rhetorical essay on euthanasia and as such no longer conforms to the guidelines set out for UN Resolutions

AWARE that Resolution #43 contains no direct definition of euthanasia. As a result the resolution unintentionally legalizes all forms of euthanasia including passive euthanasia. Passive euthanasia is defined as allowing a patient to die by withholding, deliberately or otherwise, available and sufficient medical treatment to keep the patient alive.

POINTING OUT that Resolution #43 has not specified an age. The wording used is "over a CERTAIN age." The legislation could therefore be used to justify infanticide, that is the killing of babies, under the pretense that their life will not be worth living due to the presence of a terminal illness, physical or mental handicap

NOTING THAT Resolution #43 does not define the individual responsible for the decision to terminate life where the patient is unable. The phrase "closest to them" is ambiguous. It could refer either to next of kin, a romantic attachment, close friend or other unspecified individual. As such, conflict could arise as to who has the best interest of the patient at heart

ALSO POINTING OUT that Resolution #43 has not directly defined a "life-threatening illness." As such, there can be no consensus as to which illnesses should be treated and which should result in the termination of care.

ALSO AWARE of numerous health related resolutions, including UN Resolution #20, which supports the right to basic healthcare and Resolution #42 which supports increased access to medecine for the citizens of UN member states. As such, there can be no resolution which could undermine this support of basic health care or could contradict other health-related resolutions, all of which are intented to provide more health care and not less

NOTING WITH CONCERN the apparent lack of value placed on the life of the dying, terminally ill or wounded, as evidenced by such phrases as "Why should carers use up time on those certain to die..." Since all individuals are accorded the same rights and freedoms under the Universal Bill of Rights, and the Resolution on Fairness and Equality, Resolution #88, it is inappropriate to compare the worth of the dying to the worth of "those with a chance for life" in a resolution

ALSO NOTING WITH CONCERN the use of anti-religious language such as "And for those using religion as a barrier, don't you think..." present in the bill. Such language is opposed to the religious tolerance guaranteed by UN Resolution #19. On this basis alone, the bill should have been previously overturned or at the very least reworded, but it has been allowed to stand as is. The UN Universal Bill of Rights, Resolution #26 also guarantees the right to freedom of religion for member nations. As such, there can be no resolution that may conflict with this right, either in meaning, intent or idea

HEREBY REPEALS Resolution #43

--Rooty

I'm sure some of our esteemed colleagues will have some criticism about wording etc, but all in all, to myself at least, this seems fairly well laid out and deserving of some consideration.

RECOGNIZING that Resolution #43 is not a resolution at all, but is rather a rhetorical essay on euthanasia

Factually incorrect. A resolution is a resolution is a resolution. You might want to word it in a way that states it is a poorly written resolution.

ALSO NOTING that the resolution passed by 779 votes of a total 20,841 votes, a mere 3% margin

A majority is a majority is a majority. I personally find this argument irrelevant.

FURTHER RECOGNIZING the sovreignty of UN member nations in issues of religion, societal conscience and cultural sensitivity as guaranteed under the Universal Bill of Rights and various other civil rights legislation

It is illegal to have NatSov as the only argument for a repeal. It is a fairly new ruling, so there isn't much precedent on how much you need other than NatSov. Still, you are in shaky ground.

It is our recommendation that Resolution #43 be stricken from the UN Constitution. Member nations will remain free to deal with euthanasia as they see fit.

In the first part, what you are doing is not a recommendation. It should just read:
REPEALS Resolution #43.

In the second part, you seem to be introducing new legislation, which might be illegal. Not necessarily, but again shaky ground.

You need to beef up your argument to explain why the resolution's effects are bad. And you need to complain about the outrageous religious reference.

Factually incorrect. A resolution is a resolution is a resolution. You might want to word it in a way that states it is a poorly written resolution.

<snort>
Have you read the "resolution?"
Under the current guidelines for writing resolutions, blatant rhetoric is not allowed. Were the original resolution to be dropped into the queue today, it would not make it.

me: blah blah blah 3% pass blah blah blah
you: A majority is a majority is a majority. I personally find this argument irrelevant.
Relevancy is a matter of perspective. There are plenty of real life scenarios where a majority needs to be a SIGNIFICANT majority. Given that euthanasia is a highly complex issue, it is my opinion that (given how a lot of votes happen: without reading the issue) this is probably an instance where a slim majority might mean that the issue needs revisiting.

It is illegal to have NatSov as the only argument for a repeal. It is a fairly new ruling, so there isn't much precedent on how much you need other than NatSov. Still, you are in shaky ground.
Sovreignty is not the only argument, if you will reread what I said. There are also civil liberties guaranteed under the UN constitution re: religious, societal and cultural sensitivities.
And then there is the wording of the original resolution itself.... agh!

In the first part, what you are doing is not a recommendation. It should just read:
REPEALS Resolution #43.
So noted.
I will make the appropriate adjustment as the discussion evolves.

In the second part, you seem to be introducing new legislation, which might be illegal. Not necessarily, but again shaky ground.
Not at all.
Where no legislation exists, nations are free to do as they please. If I were to say that euthanasia must be illegal, then that would be introducing new legislation.

You need to beef up your argument to explain why the resolution's effects are bad. And you need to complain about the outrageous religious reference.
Any recommendations?
I have already outlined what aspects of the resolution that I find to be most harmful to member states (ie: tramping over their religious, societal and cultural concerns).

--Rooty

Our comments:


RECOGNIZING that Resolution #43 is not a resolution at all, but is rather a rhetorical essay on euthanasia

Not so. It was passed by this Assembly and is a resolution. You might argue that it is badly written, ambiguous, and doesn't clearly establish its requirements. But to say it isn't a resolution is simply not true.

ALSO NOTING that the resolution passed by 779 votes of a total 20,841 votes, a mere 3% margin

Irrelevant. The margin by which a resolution passed two years ago has nothing to do with its quality or appropriateness today.

FURTHER RECOGNIZING the sovreignty of UN member nations in issues of religion, societal conscience and cultural sensitivity as guaranteed under the Universal Bill of Rights and various other civil rights legislation

It's a considerable stretch to try to say that the "Universal Bill of Rights" guarantees national sovereignty on the matter, although some case could be made for Article 10, we suppose. A more pertinent reference would be to NSUN Resolution #49, "Rights and Duties of UN States". But there, we find the guarantees of sovereignty to be limited by "subject to the immunities recognized by international law". And what "various other civil rights legislation"? If you're going to claim that laws do something, cite them.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

You're entering Hallow ground no matter what but your arguement is good it just needs some more wording and perhaps a few more facts as for why it should be left up to a nation and not set by the UN and while you're at that you could just write a whole new resolution that incorporates euthanasia, myself I have always found that no one should be able to decide what's ethical besides the doctor and he should be able to choose from what he knows.

<snort>
Have you read the "resolution?"
Under the current guidelines for writing resolutions, blatant rhetoric is not allowed. Were the original resolution to be dropped into the queue today, it would not make it.And that arguement won't make it past the mods.

Sovreignty is not the only argument, if you will reread what I said.While it may not be your only arguement, it is still the major one that you use, especially as your other ones (wording and slim majority) are very weak.
There are also civil liberties guaranteed under the UN constitution re: religious, societal and cultural sensitivities. UN Constitution? Since when do we have one of those?
And then there is the wording of the original resolution itself.... agh!I'd like to point out that presonally I hate #43 myself so much so that I'll approve any half-assed repeal attempt submitted reguardless of it's legality.

I too would gladly vote for this once you fix it up and get it in que and if you need help drafting it i would be honored to help such.

UN Constitution? Since when do we have one of those?

I should probably not use this phrase to refer to the whole body of UN Resolutions, but I don't have any other wording for it.

I'd like to point out that presonally I hate #43 myself so much so that I'll approve any half-assed repeal attempt submitted reguardless of it's legality.
I hope to do better than half-assed ;-)

Note all, I have made some adjustments to the repeal, including not saying that it's not a resolution (eventhough it isn't). Hopefully my changes meet with your approval.

Also, given that I mentioned the 3% margin, would people be in favour of introducing legislation that requires resolutions to pass by a particular margin? I think it could be something worth discussing.

--Rooty
PS: As far as offers for assistance go, that's what this thread is for. Post whatever alternate wording you think might be useful, or send me a telegram, and I will do my utmost to acomodate you.... should your alternate wording be better than mine, that is. If it sucks, screw you ;)

I think you need to emphasise how it is a resolution that no-one believes should remain due to it reflecting a personal view as opposed to one of the UN community.

There's been someone trying to propose a repeal repeatedly - except he kept sending it before letting us review. It might help for you to read them, as people retroactively tried to help him, to no avail.:rolleyes:

In chronological order. The last has the least comments, I think we'd despaired by then and just gave up.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=473720
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=474420
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=476804

You should do a spell check on it but it's looking better perhaps show how it's hurtful though because even then repealing this resolution can be a problem because some people might like it and others don't

I have a point that can be added as I had a draft before but never posted it anywhere and now seem to have lost it.

However, resolution 43 has legalised all forms of Euthanasia. This was probably an unwanted effect because he has legalised involuntary Euthanasia. This is where the patient does not request to die, but is either left to die without treatment (passive Euthanasia) or killed via a drug (Active Euthanasia). Also, a definition of Euthanasia is that it must be for the best interest of the person. I.e. Doctors could abuse the privilege of having legalised Euthanasia by just euthanising someone with an incurable disease rather than trying to prolong their life in order to save money, so this is wrong. This is against the doctor's hippocratical Oath. Basically you need to say something along the lines of:

REGRETS the ignorance of the original resolution's writer as they have unwillingly legalised all forms of Euthanasia which includes Involuntary Euthanasia where the patient can be Euthanised even if they don't want to. This destroys good relationships between doctors and patients as doctors can abuse this privilege.

However, I believe that this resolution is easy to repeal, so wouldn't need too much information anyway.

Ah the hippocratical oath, rubbish I find. Say you're a man who produces to much testosterone so you want your balls removed so you can feel calmer inside, well thanks to the doctor's laws and regulations that requires quite a bit of counseling first and then you won't want it done anymore because they will have told you that it's evil.

Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich repeatedly bangs his head on his desk.

It's pretty short, but how much do you need to get rid of a really dumb bill?
A pretty massive telegramming campaign, from what I hear. Nothing passes on its own strength anymore, as least I don't think it does.

As to the actual text, the "margin of passage" argument will more likely work against you than for you. A majority is a majority, regardless of margin. Historically, it hasn't helped many/any repeals pass.

The sovereignty argument is a null, as EVERY resolution passed by this body is a violation of sovereignty, both in the descriptive and legal definition (per #49 Rights and Duties).

The "doesn't comply with current rules" argument is also a null, as our rules are not applied retroactively. You can make a case that it makes the resolution weaker, but you can't claim that it's illegal because of it. (To your credit, I only include this bit because so many people try it. You didn't even try that.)

Speaking as a former UN regular and not as a mod, I'd suggest taking this one back for a bit of reprioritisation and heavy editing, and try to make your legal argument the standout. Right now the emphasis is on stuff most of us have learned to ignore.

It needs revising, but it's a good resolution nonetheless.

I changed it around a bit, but it probably isn't much better:

Repeal of Resolution #43: Legalise Euthanasia

RECOGNIZING that Resolution #43 is an unclear and poorly written rhetorical essay and as such no longer conforms to the guidelines set out for UN Resolutions,

NOTING that the resolution passed by 779 votes of a total 20,841 votes, a mere 3% margin,

FURTHER NOTING that euthanasia is considered immoral in a number of nations,

DISTURBED that Resolution #43 legalizes all forms of euthanasia, including passive euthanasia, which is simply allowing a patent to die, that this may be considered cruel or inhumane treatment, and that cruel and inhumane treatment is explicitly banned by the Universal Bill of Rights,

NOTING WITH CONCERN the use of anti-religious language such as "And for those using religion as a barrier, don't you think..." present in the bill, and that such language flies in the face of the religious tolerance guaranteed by UN Resolution #19, "Religious Tolerance" and by the Universal Bill of Rights,

FURTHER NOTING WITH CONCERN the apparent lack of value placed on the terminally ill or wounded, and that it would be against a number of United Nations precedents to declare those with a chance of recovery more valuable than those without it,

HEREBY REPEALS Resolution #43.

---------------------------------------

This is my first real shot at a proposal, so it might not be any better.

A. T. Stilgram
Caratian Ambassador to the United Nations

Also, given that I mentioned the 3% margin, would people be in favour of introducing legislation that requires resolutions to pass by a particular margin? I think it could be something worth discussing.
That would be illegal. You could only do that by raising a point in the Technical Forum: the mods have said no to similar requests in the past, though.

However, resolution 43 has legalised all forms of Euthanasia. This was probably an unwanted effect because he has legalised involuntary Euthanasia. This is where the patient does not request to die, but is either left to die without treatment (passive Euthanasia) or killed via a drug (Active Euthanasia). Also, a definition of Euthanasia is that it must be for the best interest of the person. I.e. Doctors could abuse the privilege of having legalised Euthanasia by just euthanising someone with an incurable disease rather than trying to prolong their life in order to save money, so this is wrong.
This is a good point, and something that I should add to the repeal.

Given everyone's thoughts on the matter, I will remove the comment on the slim margin. I still think it's an important issue, but perhaps this resolution is not the place to address it.
I will make the appropriate edits to the repeal. Thanx for all your thoughts

--Rooty

However, resolution 43 has legalised all forms of Euthanasia.

You want to see a proposal that NatSovs, IntFeds and IndSovs will all support, make this your main argument. In fact, kill everything except the negative perspective on religion in your current draft and run with this as your main argument, you have a good repeal. You say "National Sovereignty", you've lost the IntFed hardliners (I oppose anything that says "National Sovereignty" by default - I don't give a damn about how much I agree with the rest of the stuff, I don't think any text should make it onto the passed list with that term engraved in it. I think a few have, but the fewer, the better. You say 3% margin, no one cares. I would probably even drop all the back-referencing too - for a lot of reasons but the best is simplicity (many fluffies get frustrated with extensive backreferencing because they don't know more than 5 resolutions......the 5 that they've voted on so far).

Don't bother arguing national sovereignty. We'll vote for it anyway. I think the thing to concentrate on, as suggested by Secretary MacWhatsername, is to concentrate on the fact this allows involuntary euthanasia.

I still think the anti-religious language is important enough to be pointed out in the repeal. After all, we do have resolutions upholding freedom of religious belief. How resolution managed to pass with that comment in there is beyond me.
As far as National Sovreignty goes, given that the UN also upholds it, I don't understand why people are having a hard time with that in the repeal. Is there something that I am not aware of? I'm almost tempted to point it out in the "Repeal Citizen Rule" thread, since member nations are also allowed to have whatever form of government they desire.

--Rooty

I still think the anti-religious language is important enough to be pointed out in the repeal. After all, we do have resolutions upholding freedom of religious belief. How resolution managed to pass with that comment in there is beyond me.
As far as National Sovreignty goes, given that the UN also upholds it, I don't understand why people are having a hard time with that in the repeal. Is there something that I am not aware of? I'm almost tempted to point it out in the "Repeal Citizen Rule" thread, since member nations are also allowed to have whatever form of government they desire.

--Rooty

I'm afraid you'll find that there are quite a few representatives of nations here who cringe at the mere thought of not being allowed to tell other nations what to do.

I still think the anti-religious language is important enough to be pointed out in the repeal. After all, we do have resolutions upholding freedom of religious belief. How resolution managed to pass with that comment in there is beyond me.
I agree with this...

As far as National Sovreignty goes, given that the UN also upholds it, I don't understand why people are having a hard time with that in the repeal. Is there something that I am not aware of? I'm almost tempted to point it out in the "Repeal Citizen Rule" thread, since member nations are also allowed to have whatever form of government they desire.
...but not this. All the national sovereigntists will vote for this repeal anyway. Even if said "this proposal doesn't go far enough!" they'd vote for it. Don't include the argument because it will get into unnecessarily sidetracked by those who feel euthanasia is an individual right that transcends national rights, whereas hopefully both of those groups can agree that #43 is a terrible resolution anyway.

This was the proposal that I proposed last month. It got about 30 votes without a telegram campaign. It may help.


INSISTING that resolution 43 is just an emotive story that has had little consideration in setting guidelines for the legalisation of Euthanasia:

i. It hasn't specified an age, but has said 'over a CERTAIN age'
ii. It hasn't determined what is deemed to be a 'life-threatening' illness.

SHOWING the ignorance of the writer of the proposal in not understanding that there are different types of Euthanasia:

Involuntary euthanasia is where the patient does not request death, but has it forced upon them because a doctor or medical staff see it in their best interest to die. This could be via a drug or being left to die.

WORRIED that the original resolution has accidentally legalised this form of Euthanasia as no guidelines were set.

SCARED that doctors abuse the privilege of having Euthanasia legalised:

i. There could be a cancer patient who has a chance of living. However, because Euthanasia is legalised, a doctor could refuse to give treatment to save money and make it easier for themselves. (This is known as Passive-Involuntary Euthanasia)
ii. Rather than treating a terminally ill patient for the rest of their life, i.e on a life support machine, a doctor could euthanise them with a drug in their best interest as he could tell them that they would be in a lot of pain later on. (This is known as Active Involuntary Euthanasia)

ARGUING against the religious argument in the original resolution, active Euthanasia would be against all religions as it is seen as bad as suicide, so the person would not go to paradise. Active Euthanasia is a mortal sin.

NOTING that if the individual wants to live, then they should be allowed to. Therefore, this resolution must be repealed, so as to allow more civil freedoms for the public.

Also NOTING that people can come out of comas after 5-10 years, so no-one should be allowed to make the decision to kill them.

UNDERSTANDING that this resolution was passed by a very small margin, so should be repealed.

REPEALING resolution 43 because there are many dangers in legalising all forms of Euthanasia, no guidelines were set in the resolution and a lot of ignorance was shown towards this topic.

The repeal has been updated. Please see the original post of this thread.

--Rooty

I think it is a very good repeal that should definitely be passed. Just one thing. People may appreciate it if you say that there was help in writing the repeal by: Blah Blah Blah.

I recommend that when you propose it, to do it early in the morning, so as to allow more time for it to gain approvals. Also, I would be willing to take part in a telegram campaign. We could say that I do A-M and you do N-Z. If more people wish to take part in the telegram campaign it would be a lot quicker. Anyone? Tell us when you propose it.

As far as National Sovreignty goes, given that the UN also upholds it, I don't understand why people are having a hard time with that in the repeal. Is there something that I am not aware of? I'm almost tempted to point it out in the "Repeal Citizen Rule" thread, since member nations are also allowed to have whatever form of government they desire.

--Rooty

The UN upholds it?

------------------------------------

Ideological bans do not apply to this sort of thing. You can have a democracy (or dictatorship), but you can't have slavery so it's false to say you can have whatever government you want. The question of the importance of National Sovereignty and whether it should be held above what the UN does or attempts to accomplish or if there are many things that are much more important than National Sovereignty - such as citizen's rights, punishing murderers, outlawing war, barring nukes/bio-weapons/rat-poison, or Euthanasia/abortion/same-sex marriage - is possibly the main and biggest argument and certainly extends to issues across the entire spectrum of proposals. Two major camps have broken out and effectively formed political parties (with rumors of a third starting to be circulated) - the International Federalists (IntFeds, party: UIC) and National Sovereigntists (NatSovs, party: NSO). You will see this debate everywhere you go.

Some IntFeds such as myself don't believe nations have sovereignty so long as they remain under the UN banner. Yes, there is a possibility to emmulate sovereignty (and we can debate the matter of what nations should and shouldn't have the right to legislate on), but it still isn't true sovereignty for you are subjected to a level of government above you. You have the right to declare your independance from the UN at any time - the resign button is fairly obvious - but so long as you remain under our banner, you are not a sovereign nation. As such, we oppose, by default, any proposal that uses the term "National Sovereignty" as a justification, since to us, such a claim is completely false and it is important to us that the UN never claim member Nations still have sovereignty. While we have failed in that respect (see Abortion Legality Convention), we still hold that stance and do what we can to limit how often the UN makes such a claim. As such, any attempt to argue sovereignty will lose you votes faster than you'll gain them.

I agree with this...


...but not this. All the national sovereigntists will vote for this repeal anyway. Even if said "this proposal doesn't go far enough!" they'd vote for it. Don't include the argument because it will get into unnecessarily sidetracked by those who feel euthanasia is an individual right that transcends national rights, whereas hopefully both of those groups can agree that #43 is a terrible resolution anyway.

Indeed, the group you are going to have to arse-kiss the most are the pro-euthanists.
Appeal to their higher wisdom, their sensability and of course high standards and they'll agree with you. But obviously it's not easy to do.

<snip>
Or then there are the odd balls like my state which believe the UN is both Sovereign and not, in that states have sovereignty, and the UN requires the state to implement the rules, if they do not, they are breach of the UN. There just is very little the UN can do to stop it. Without the direct effect of regulations the UN would be powerless.

ooc: and having just done a UK Public Law revision tutorial 30min ago my thoughts are very confused, so I don't think that was particularly clear. It's an irrelevant point anyway - on with the revol...resolution!

From what I recall, it explicitly states in #43 that euthanasia is 100% voluntary and, if the patient is unable to choose, the closest family member shall choose in his/her stead.

A. T. Stilgram
Caratian Ambassador to the United Nations

From what I recall, it explicitly states in #43 that euthanasia is 100% voluntary and, if the patient is unable to choose, the closest family member shall choose in his/her stead.

A. T. Stilgram
Caratian Ambassador to the United Nations
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.
This means any person who is not seriously ill can be euthanised.

This means any person over a certain age - an age that can be set at 80, 18, or, um, 0 - can be euthanised.

And because "those closest to them" is not defined, and no criteria on which the person is able to make the decision are specified, it really is open to abuse.

For example: in Gruenberg, we regularly euthanise the elderly, so as to avoid them draining the state coffers. They are over a certain age, because they're old they clearly can't decide for themselves, and because in Gruenberg we like to have a close relationship between individual and state, it is reasonable to assume "those closest to them" include their local political officer, who will assign them for destruction.

In fact, our only reason for opposing a repeal is we're worried any replacement might prevent us from carrying out this necessary act of compassion.

You see, Caratia doesn't like #43 for the exact opposite reasons that Gruenberg does.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend, I guess.

Still wanting comments on his revisions (page 2, 1st post ;) ),
A. T. Stilgram
Caratian Ambassador to the United Nations

AWARE that Resolution #43 contains no direct definition of euthanasia. As a result the resolution unintentionally legalizes all forms of euthanasia including passive euthanasia. Passive euthanasia is defined as allowing a patient to die by withholding, deliberately or otherwise, proper medical treatment.


The problem is that we can't define 'proper medical treatment'.. As in some nations the 'medical treatment' might simply not be there to apply because that nation is not advanced enough to have it on hand. Thus to try and sort out this would be impossible.

As in some nations just shaking a burning tree branch over a patient may be all the 'medical treatment' they give for cancer patients as they let them leave this world to the next. Thus another might want to x-ray, radiate, drug, and a host of other things to provide proper treatment as they die.

Thus one claims the other is withholding proper medical treatment and we get into claims of barbaric conduct and then murder when the person with cancer moves on. As some nations like mine believ that this is only one part of a long life road for us all so we welcome death and don't fear it. Thus we don't want a lot of outsiders trying to hold us from the next mile on our road home.

This one on euthanasia simply insure we have that right to move on when the time comes without others getting involved. Thus to mess with it and set one to block our travel onward home we oppose.

On the mention of AGE in this one. I believe that it's best not to add ages to proposals due to the wide range of national views on just when a kid is and adult and can support themselves or even when they get to old to support themselves. As in my nation we set the age at ten for adult while some 18 others 21 so where do you fix it at, best to just leave it open. Now on the high end don't think age would be a factor as much as a person medical mental state there.. Again in some nations a person reaches 20 and they already old and long over the hill while anothers they just a youth at 200.

The point is that the current Resolution has all those things you are concerned with.
Once it is repealed it will be a matter of state definition and choice until another resolution is passed which either bans, permits or limits euthanasia. Whichever it is, it has to be better constructed than the current resolution.

As much as I don't like the notion of euthanasia, I personally feel that I would rather have the legal form of euthanasia as presented in resolution #43 than the general form of euthanasia that is currently trying to be approved. There are three general forms of euthanasia and all three of them are trying to be pushed where I currently live.

Voluntary euthanasia: When the person who is killed has requested to be killed.

Non-voluntary: When the person who is killed made no request and gave no consent.

Involuntary euthanasia: When the person who is killed made an expressed wish to the contrary.

Resolution #43 promotes voluntary euthanasias, and a limited form of non-voluntary euthanasia which gives authority to close relatives. In the real world non-voluntary euthanasia is often done by the agreement of doctors and HMOS. (The hospital needs the bed space, and the patient costs money so the patient is killed.)

Involuntary euthanasia is often done under the excuse of, "Well we feel that the patient would suffer if they were told that they have a condition that would cause them to suffer and die, so not tellnig them and simply killing them would not cause them any suffering."

Since one could argue that resolution #43 prevents a broader resolution legalizing goverment based non-voluntary euthanaisa and involuntary euthanasia, are you sure you really want to repeal it? Think about this carefully, the end result could be far worse.

I think that would be unlikely to pass.

However, #43 says the government has to allow voluntary from the patient or next of kin. It does not forbid the latter two. So unless you make it clear that they are forbidden they won't be.
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.

Apart from the fact this is so badly worded that interpretating it is difficult (ooc: sounds like an essay he had to do for RE :rolleyes:)
...'closest' might not mean 'next of kin'.
It only covers if the 'living will' expressly asks for euthanasia, not if it rejects it.

It also gives no mention to the other form of living wills. "Make no undue effort to save my life if it is likely that I will enter a vegetative state." which are enforced before major surgery or after an accident.

ooc: Just a thought...why can't Hack or similar just remove it for violating the 'no rhetoric' rule?

ooc: Just a thought...why can't Hack or similar just remove it for violating the 'no rhetoric' rule?


Presumably it pre-dates that rule, and is therefore "grandfathered in"...

Since one could argue that resolution #43 prevents a broader resolution legalizing goverment based non-voluntary euthanaisa and involuntary euthanasia, are you sure you really want to repeal it? Think about this carefully, the end result could be far worse.

Resolution #43 makes no such prevention. It merely allows euthanasia without giving any consideration to the type, age of the patient and other similar concerns. It definitely needs to be repealed.
Also, the point about who is closest to them is well taken, and I should add it to the repeal. Does closest to them mean next of kin? Some random lover? How would conflicts be resolved between next of kin who says the patient should die and a lover who wants the patient to be left alive? Or vice versa?

"The problem is that we can't define 'proper medical treatment'.. As in some nations the 'medical treatment' might simply not be there to apply because that nation is not advanced enough to have it on hand. Thus to try and sort out this would be impossible. "
Does "available and sufficient medical treatment to keep them alive" suit you?

--Rooty

ooc: Just a thought...why can't Hack or similar just remove it for violating the 'no rhetoric' rule?Because I'm not an Admin; I don't have that ability. And the Admins take a hands-off approach to passed Resolutions (save for the handful that were... misplaced... during the move). I believe one put it as "The UN gets the Resolutions it deserves".

At any rate, this thing predates my ruleset, and I'm pretty sure it predates the Enodian laws.

Does closest to them mean next of kin? Some random lover? How would conflicts be resolved between next of kin who says the patient should die and a lover who wants the patient to be left alive?

Kin is defined as 'blood relative' thus a lover would not be a 'blood relative' closer than a kin would be. As most RW nations would consider at least second cousin before one can become lovers with relatives; any closer and it's incest. A spouse in most has say over even the kin and for sure a lover. Spouse being married under laws to the person while the lover may be one person spends those secret weekends with.

NEXT OF KIN (NOK)--- Individual authorized as a primary point of contact for an individual. May participate in decision making regarding medical treatment and/or disposition of remains.
Although that is a health and therefore legal definition as opposed to the strict dictionary one.

Kin is defined as 'blood relative' thus a lover would not be a 'blood relative' closer than a kin would be. As most RW nations would consider at least second cousin before one can become lovers with relatives; any closer and it's incest. A spouse in most has say over even the kin and for sure a lover. Spouse being married under laws to the person while the lover may be one person spends those secret weekends with.

First cousins are not incest in many R/L nations.

Please note, however, that the wording of Resolution #43 says "closest to them" and not kin.
I am thinking I will drop this into the queue the end of this week. Does anyone have any suggestions re: a strategy to get this thing properly noticed, voted for and enacted? Any ideas would be much appreciated.

--Rooty

Your clauses 3 and 5 came from my original proposal and other nations have helped you with the proposal throughout this thread, so it is just a suggestion that you could add something something like Help was given by: <insert nation's who you feel have helped you> into your proposal.

Also, I will be more than willing to help in a telegram campaign for your proposal as I am strongly opposed to the legalisation of Euthanasia. This should have no problem getting to quorum.

Your clauses 3 and 5 came from my original proposal and other nations have helped you with the proposal throughout this thread, so it is just a suggestion that you could add something something like Help was given by: <insert nation's who you feel have helped you> into your proposal.

You can only credit one nation as a co-author.

Is that actually a rule, so the moderators would delete it if it had more than one co-author? Anyway, I wasn't saying give everyone co-author status - just to recognise that they helped, so he could say something like AIDED BY blah blah blah - does that count as a co-author.

Anyway, i'm sure that travelling Harem and I shall be telegramming delegates about his proposal, so at the moment, you could say that it is split A-M and N-Z. This would be made a lot easier if more people were willing to promote the proposal as we could inform more delegates. So anyone else up for a telegram campaign?

Is that actually a rule, so the moderators would delete it if it had more than one co-author? Anyway, I wasn't saying give everyone co-author status - just to recognise that they helped, so he could say something like AIDED BY blah blah blah - does that count as a co-author.

Yes, it is a rule, the violation of which will get the proposal deleted, and no, you can't get around it that way.

*cough* I've seen them with more than one credit. *cough*

I am not going to credit only one other nation as co-author, since there have been suggestions by many individuals and to single out only one person would be unfair.
I might use the phrase "collaborative effort" instead, since there is no rule against it. You'll just have to know that "collaborative effort" means you.
Everyone ok with that?

--Rooty

I am not going to credit only one other nation as co-author, since there have been suggestions by many individuals and to single out only one person would be unfair.
I might use the phrase "collaborative effort" instead, since there is no rule against it. You'll just have to know that "collaborative effort" means you.
Everyone ok with that?

--Rooty

Then just say nothing.

Then just say nothing.
That was going to be my original plan.
But, if people feel they deserve some kind of credit, I certainly don't want to sound like I am being stingy. It wouldn't make a difference to me, if roles were reversed.

--Rooty

Ok.
I have submitted my proposal for a repeal.
I have never run a telegram campaign before. What is the best strategy? Just start bombing away?

--Rooty

That was going to be my original plan.
But, if people feel they deserve some kind of credit, I certainly don't want to sound like I am being stingy. It wouldn't make a difference to me, if roles were reversed.When I wanted to credit the two nations who helped most on the Gay Rights repeal, I just thanked them in the first post of the Official Topic thread -- although Gruen probably deserved co-author credit in the proposal itself; many of my arguments were based on suggestions he had previously made.

Ok.
I have submitted my proposal for a repeal.
I have never run a telegram campaign before. What is the best strategy? Just start bombing away?If you wanna do a lazy TG campaign, just hit all the delegates voting for and against the current proposal at vote, then hit all the delegates who have approved all the proposals in queue. Me, I usually get a few people together to conduct a coordinated strike on the entire delegate list, though that takes effort, and a little planning before you submit. Since you've already submitted, I'd suggest the former.

Do I need to say anything specific? Or is "Please carefully consider my repeal of Resolution #43" enough?

--Rooty
PS: Sorry. I know it sounds like I need hand-holding. But, let's face it; I don't want to have to try repeal this thing again.

You should be trying to persuade them why they should be endorsing the repeal.

A short summation of the justification for your repeal ought to do the trick, followed by an E-Z link (don't make delegates search the list themselves). This URL should work: www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=euthanasia

Agh!
We totally need some sort of mass telegrammer.
Sending them one by one SUCKS!!!

--Rooty

Agh!
We totally need some sort of mass telegrammer.
Sending them one by one SUCKS!!!

--Rooty
I hear you about sending each telegram individually. However, can you image the telegram spam that would result if there was a mass telegrammer?

I hear you about sending each telegram individually. However, can you image the telegram spam that would result if there was a mass telegrammer?

Yeah
I totally understand why the decision was made.
But AARGH! My wrist!

--Rooty

Yeah
I totally understand why the decision was made.
But AARGH! My wrist!

--Rooty

Cowboy up! :)

You can do it!

But if you only knew how puny my little twig arms are...

--Rooty
PS: In all seriousness, once I have hit everyone who approved the Citizens Rule Repeal, I think I will leave it for a bit. Tomorrow I'll come back and see what sort of action we got overnight, and then see if I need to nag anyone else.

Yeah
I totally understand why the decision was made.
But AARGH! My wrist!

--Rooty

It's the monotony of a telegram campaign that gets to me. My wrists are uh...well-developed.

>.>
<.<

*runs back to the secret underground DEFCON (http://s15.invisionfree.com/UN_DEFCON) bunker*

It's the monotony of a telegram campaign that gets to me. My wrists are uh...well-developed.

>.>
<.<

*runs back to the secret underground DEFCON (http://s15.invisionfree.com/UN_DEFCON) bunker*
Of course they are! You've hand-written so many UN documents your wrists are strong and powerful!

ooc: roflmao

Of course they are! You've hand-written so many UN documents your wrists are strong and powerful!

ooc: roflmao

That's it exactly! Um...yeah.

So, as of this morning we have 29 approvals. We're still 90-something short. I'm telegramming a few of the people I didn't catch yesterday.
Anyone wanna help out?

--Rooty

Well, if you're only hitting those who approved Repeal CRR, it's not gonna cut it. I suggest copying down the delegate votes (http://www.nationstates.net/-1/page=UN_delegate_votes) list for the resolution currently at vote (and do it quick; the vote expires in just a couple of hours) and get them too; you have a couple of days yet, so there's time.

Just a couple of hours? What are you talking about? It says I have until the 7th. Today is only the 5th.
I have already started down the list of delegates.

--Rooty

I meant the resolution at vote (UN Patent Law) expires today, not your proposal. If you want to telegram delegates who have voted either for or against UNPL, you have to copy down the list now.

Wheew!
Talk about panic for a minute there.
Don't worry about that list. I am just going to go through the UN list of Delegates. That ought to give me enough, even if I don't manage to hit every single delegate.
If you want to start at the bottom of the list and work up, feel free

--Rooty

So, as of this morning we have 29 approvals. We're still 90-something short. I'm telegramming a few of the people I didn't catch yesterday.
Anyone wanna help out?

--Rooty


I would like to help out, but we don't know who you have already telegrammed and it would be pointless to telegram them again.

I suggest that you try and get this to quorum with just you tging delegates and if it fails, we could arrange a telegram campaign where we split who we telegram alphabetically depending on how many people want to take part in the campaign.

Sounds like a plan

--Rooty
<flexes wrist>

So, it looks like my repeal proposal did not make it. I am betting having voting close on Sunday was a contributor. I should probably have dropped my repeal in on a different day, so that more people would see it. I, for one, am rarely online on the weekend.
So, now what should the plan be? I still think this repeal is worth it... although, someone did point out a spelling mistake I should fix.
Any suggestions?

--Rooty

I very much think you should carry on with this repeal. I have little to add, textually, though. Depending on when you submit it, I might be able to help TG.

RECOGNIZING that Resolution #43 is a poorly written rhetorical essay on euthanasia and as such no longer conforms to the guidelines set out for UN ResolutionsThis is why this one should stay as it is simple and don't try to define euthanasia in a way that all nations finds offensive and in vilolation of some national law or religious belief..
AWARE that Resolution #43 contains no direct definition of euthanasia.In not defining it leaves individual nations that duty and thus allows them to make the laws they feel propoer to deal with 'euthanasia' as they define it not some other nations..
POINTING OUT that Resolution #43 has not specified an age. The wording used is "over a CERTAIN age."My understanding of 'euthanasia' has noting to do with the age of the person but that persons medical condition.. A person with cancer or other illness that can't be cured and who is in a great deal of pain needs to be allowed to die and end their pain in this world. Thus be they 1 day old or 1000 days old if the medical conditions warrants 'euthanasia' then we let them leave this world.
NOTING THAT Resolution #43 does not define the individual responsible for the decision to terminate life where the patient is unable. The phrase "closest to them" is ambiguous. It could refer either to next of kin, a romantic attachment, close friend or other unspecified individual. As such, conflict could arise as to who has the best interest of the patient at heart.So would you say ones 'KIN' or 'WIFE' should have say over this issue in regards of when a person should die? Then bring in your lover or friend and who then has say? Lover, Kin, Wife, or Friend. As I believe most nations already have laws on the books that say who becomes guardian or spokeperson for another in instances when that person can't do it for themselves. Thus it's not needed here to add that say ones 'wife' or 'exwife' has say over ones 'kin' as a wife is not kin... and if she were closer than first cousin as kin then in most nations the relationship if sexual would not be legal based on incest laws. Kin is blood relative.. and in most states have say over anyone else... unless there is a wife still married to the person by law. Anyway since this is something each state needs to establish this leaves that up to them.
ALSO POINTING OUT that Resolution #43 has not directly defined a "life-threatening illness." As such, there can be no consensus as to which illnesses should be treated and which should result in the termination of care.So would you say that to have 'Green River Fever' for longer than two days is a 'life-threatening-illness" or not.. As to some it might well be to others it's no more than a two day fever. How do you define it?

ALSO AWARE of numerous health related resolutions, including UN Resolution #20, which supports the right to basic healthcare and Resolution #42 which supports increased access to medecine for the citizens of UN member states. As such, there can be no resolution which could undermine this support of basic health care or could contradict other health-related resolutions, all of which are intented to provide more health care and not lessI see nothing in R43 to do this as it simply says we let them die.. There is a point when basic heatlh care is no longer that.. Also that medicines which start out to help become ineffective due to over use.. or some even create worse side effects that add to the pain and suffering. Thus when do you over care a person and start to abuse them?
NOTING WITH CONCERN the apparent lack of value placed on the life of the dying, terminally ill or wounded, as evidenced by such phrases as "Why should carers use up time on those certain to die..." Since all individuals are accorded the same rights and freedoms under the Universal Bill of Rights, and the Resolution on Fairness and Equality, Resolution #88, it is inappropriate to compare the worth of the dying to the worth of "those with a chance for life" in a resolutionMany nations may belive that life never ends that we move through phases in it. This world we are in now may be just one part of a long life road.. Death may be simply reaching the next mile on that road. Thus why should one hold a person back simply because they can't move on with them? Or fail to understand how one nation sees life....
ALSO NOTING WITH CONCERN the use of anti-religious language such as "And for those using religion as a barrier, don't you think..." present in the bill. Such language is opposed to the religious tolerance guaranteed by UN Resolution #19. On this basis alone, the bill should have been previously overturned or at the very least reworded, but it has been allowed to stand as is. The UN Universal Bill of Rights, Resolution #26 also guarantees the right to freedom of religion for member nations. As such, there can be no resolution that may conflict with this right, either in meaning, intent or idea
People often don't tolerate things they don't understand.. Religion of another is such a thing if it differers from yours. Since R43 mandates no defined euthanasia or age on it or those other things it allows each nation influnced by a religion to establish their own laws on euthanasia. Thus tolerance of all nations as well as religions those nations may follow.

I think that you should have a go at proposing the same proposal again. Propose it at about 13:30 GMT. I think that we should get as many people as possible to take part in a telegram and split it alphabetically between the delegates we tg. Travelling Harem, post your telegram that you were sending to advertise your proposal and we can all use that.

Anyone please say if they would like to help tg delegates about this proposal. So far we have:

Adolf Barham A-I
Travelling Harem J-R
Gruenberg S-Z

It would be easier for everyone if we had more people to help tg, so anyone else interested?

*isn't here*

Um, Zeldon, if you read the rest of the topic I think you'll find your points already addressed.

Perhaps there should be a 'usually' in front of 'defined as'. Until it is defined in un law each nation is welcome to its own definition.

all of which are intented to provide more health care and not lessInconsistancy on full-stops too.

as evidenced by such phrases
Is 'evidenced' a word?

Yes, evidenced is a word.
I could have used the word illustrated as well.
Zeldon, if you aren't going to bother to read the conversation, please don't add your randon, unrelated two cents worth.

1:30pm GMT.
Hmm.
That's like 8:30am my time.
Not happening. I have a kid and a husband to take care of at that time in the morning. I could maybe do it at 9am my time, which is 2pm GMT, and close enough. 9:30am my time is better.
I'll wait around for suggestions then, make the approproate spelling corrections and will drop the repeal back in tomorrow morening

--Rooty

So we have the tging split three ways, is anyone else interested in tging delegates for this repeal?

Travelling Harem, could you post your telegram that you have been sending to delegates, so that we can all use it?

If no-one else says that they would like to tg:

I'll tg as many delegates as I can whose nation's name beigns with A-I, Travelling Harem, you could do J-R and Gruenberg, you could do S-Z. Is that Okay?

Proposing the proposal at 2:30 GMT would be fine: About 1 GMT is the best time (straight after the big update), but any time soon after is good.

The point is that the current Resolution has all those things you are concerned with.
I have no concerns with the current resolution as it works for my nation in that is don't do what you say it could in the following.
Once it is repealed it will be a matter of state definition and choice until another resolution is passed which either bans, permits or limits euthanasia.What it does is let the individual nations define 'euthanasia' and set ages, limits, even ban it if they so desire. Any future proposal that addresses issue of concern by a few nations would simply cause those nations who now have no propblem with this to have problems with it.


Whichever it is, it has to be better constructed than the current resolution.But who will reconstruct the new on and will it leave nations the right to define this in their own terms even allow it? As have not seen a new proposal on this issue and even if did since their is nothing to say it will pass and meet the current ones effects then we feel as badly done as the current one may be it works.. So don't try to fit it!

Resolution #43 allows you to define euthanasia, set ages etc too it's that vague.
You could say euthanasia is the doctor's decision to administer palliative care after the patient has written a letter requesting leave to die. They could then define active adminstering of a lethal injection is murder and not euthanasia.
Conversely, governments could order everyone to make a living will, the guardians doing it in a child's stead, then bring the age down to birth, and, as a 'close', caring body. decide it is in the best interest of disabled children that they are saved the troubles of living. Afterall, for someone else to make the decision, the patient need not have a 'serious illness'.

Alright folks, the proposed repeal is in. Please make sure you include the link to http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=euthanasia so that delegates know where to look.

--Rooty

You've got your first approval, good luck.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Woohoo!!

Btw, so you know, you don't need to telegram the Spastic Colon. I got a note from them this morning (they got my note after voting had closed) so I just forwarded along the new url.
Also, if you come across a delegate called dot com Hackers, don't bother telegramming them, as I received an ignorant message back as a result of my earlier spam... I mean, important telegramming campaign

--Rooty

Travelling Harem, are you just doing J-R or are you doing everyone? Should I start telegramming delegates from A-I? Is gruenberg telegramming delegates S-Z? Lol, sorry about so many questions, but I would like to know.

I'm still telegramming delegates about my repeal of stop privacy intrusion, so I could add a P.S. mentioning your proposal with a link. What do you think?

For the time being I'll add a p.s. to my telegrams.

I am definitely NOT doing this all by myself again.
I started at J, as you suggested, and will go all the way to the end of R. I've made it as far as halfway through the L's already.
I think a separate telegram for the euthanasia bill is better, but if you have already started sending it as a PS, that is fine too. Just as long as people know about it and vote for the repeal, I am happy.

--Rooty

Okay, I'll start doing the A-I's. Gruenberg, are you able to do the S-Z's or not?

Poorly written resolutions, even ones which advocate a position I support, need to be repealed. I'm with the thread majority and applaud the changes you made. Greater Seattle's four votes will support this proposal.

Jubal Harshaw
Magister Intangelon

Yeah, I'll do the S-Zs, in a little bit.

Approved.

I'm awesome.
I've just sent off about 30 telegrams and they all have endorsing spelled endording.
Way to go me.

--Rooty

Lol, well your proposal is doing okay I suppose. If it can get to about 50+ approvals by the end of today, it should be on its way to quorum. Fairly average at the moment though.

Yeah.
I'm about halfway through the N's right now. We've got till Friday, which is still plenty of time to hit the rest of them.
I'd like to see a bigger influx of voters though.
To be honest, based on some of the telegrams I am receiving back, I wonder if some people actually understand what it means to be a delegate to the UN and vote on issues. At least a few people see to have no idea at all. Hopefully, that's not common.

--Rooty

How do you get a list of all the delegates in alphabetical order? That's what you seem to be doing.

Currently, the tgers who have gained approvals are:

Me A-I 13 (ooh unlucky!)
Travelling Harem J-R 8
Gruenberg S-Z 12

That's quite surprising because Travelling Harem seems to have tg'd the most people.

Uh, Barham?
You're starting to concern me a little. What are you doing, exactly?
There is a list of all delegates, the regions are in alphabetical order. Go to the page for the UN. Better yet, go to this link:
http://www.nationstates.net/-1/page=list_regions
There is something like 940 pages. Since you have A-I, you should be starting at page 1. Most of the people that have endorsed the proposal are people that I have telegrammed.

--Rooty

Oh dear, we've all got slightly confused. By A-I, I meant the delegates name not the region's name.

Therefore, I've been tging delegates from A-I who have voted on the current resolution and who have approved proposals. I tg these ones first because we know that they are an active delegate in the UN, so would be interested in approving proposals.

Anyway, hmmmmmm, what shall we do now? Shall I start tging the delegates of region's names from A-I or should you start tging delegates who's nation's name begins with J-R?

Gruenberg, who have you been tging, the region's from S-Z or the delegates nation name from S-Z?

Gruenberg, who have you been tging, the region's from S-Z or the delegates nation name from S-Z?
Regions S-Z.

Why would you do it that way Barham, since there is no alphabetical list but that of the regions? It would take forever. I'm already almost done the O's. That leaves me P, Q and R, which I should easily be able to finish by tomorrow.
I wouldn't worry too much about it now. Just start on page 1. If a few people get duplicates, oh well. There's nothing for it now.

--Rooty
PS: And btw, is it just me, or does anyone else get obnoxious messages from people who are supposed to be UN delegates but are for some reason highly offended at being told about a proposal?


Edit: ok, I'm well into the R's now, so I will definitely finish by tomorrow, if not before. If you want me to help out either or you, when I am done, just let me know.

I won't be able to start tging in that way until tomorrow at about 4pm GMT, so if you finish you could start the A-I's and tell me where you've got up to by tomorrow.

Damn, I've just found out that I will be out all day tomorrow, so I'm so sorry, but I won't be able to tg delegates. Travelling Harem, you and Gruenberg may be able to split the A-I's between you two. Sorry

PS: And btw, is it just me, or does anyone else get obnoxious messages from people who are supposed to be UN delegates but are for some reason highly offended at being told about a proposal?
Yeah, I got a few of those back when I was telegramming for Nuclear Armaments.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

I fully agree that #43 should be repealed, but one thing in this proposal worries me:

ALSO AWARE of numerous health related resolutions, including UN Resolution #20, which supports the right to basic healthcare and Resolution #42 which supports increased access to medicine for the citizens of UN member states. As such, there can be no resolution which could undermine this support of basic health care or could contradict other health-related resolutions, all of which are intented to provide more health care and not less.

Is this meaning to say that there can never be a resolution legalizing euthanasia? Basic healthcare and access to medicine can only go so far; if a person can't be saved, they can't be saved.

Well, I guess it doesn't really mean anything - no resolution can limit what the UN might to in the future - but I dislike that wording.

*Grumbles* I suppose I'll off to approve it anyway. It's good enough.

Is this meaning to say that there can never be a resolution legalizing euthanasia? Basic healthcare and access to medicine can only go so far; if a person can't be saved, they can't be saved.

If there's no resolution either way in force then you'll be free to legislate however you like on the matter on a national basis...

A repeal can not block future legislation, so if someone drafts a new euthanasia proposal afterwards and it passes then it passes.

Barham, have you not started your section then?

--Rooty
PS: Repeals cannot introduce legislation. That bit on healthcare was my argument against passive euthanasia, which the current resolution allows.
PS2: As of this morning, we only need 50 more votes. I am sure we can get them before the end of tomorrow.

Edit: The R's are done. I've started at page 1. BArham, if you come back and need a place to start telegramming, just let me know.

I'm sorry, but I really haven't got the time today or tomorrow to tg anyone. The proposal seems to be doing very well at the moment, and I will support it 100% when it goes to the UN floor.

That's fine.
I'm almost done the B's already anyways

--Rooty

Yeah, I got a few of those back when I was telegramming for Nuclear Armaments.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

You should've seen some of the responses I got to my telegrams in support of the Anti-Terrorism Act and the Abortion Legality Convention.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

I also have been getting quite a few responses who don't seem to get the idea of a repeal. They think I am trying to outlaw euthanasia.
I take it people don't read the rules.

--Rooty

I take it people don't read.Fixed.

lol
How true.

--Rooty

Hmm, not looking too good. 17 approvals needed in about 14 hours.

I proved it can be done though with my repeal of 'stop privacy intrusion', so good luck.

Now there's 3 more approvals needed, but the big update has already happened. Why is the proposal still there? If a proposal is close to quorum, do the Moderators keep it there a bit longer or have we just got a kind moderator here?

Now there's 3 more approvals needed, but the big update has already happened. Why is the proposal still there? If a proposal is close to quorum, do the Moderators keep it there a bit longer or have we just got a kind moderator here?We have no control over that sort of thing.

I'm not an expert on timing, but it may be that because of when you submitted you get until the Minor. Or something. No clue, really.

Nooooooooooooooooooooooo, it's gone:gundge: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :mad: Just 3 approvals off. How long is this disastrous resolution going to stand legalising Euthanasia?

If you got that close, try again.

The record for 'maximum number of attempts taken to get a proposal to quorum', so far, is 15...

I thought it only took Enn 13 times...

I thought it only took Enn 13 times...

"only"? :p

My Travelling Harem,(or anyone else) have you got a list of all the delegates who approved of your repeal last time?

If you have, you could propose the same repeal, tg all of those delegates (guaranteeing you 100-120 approvals) and then just tg a few more to get the extra approvals.

THREE approvals away??????????
GAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!
And here I thought this was a blindingly obvious repeal!
I am going to drop this in the queue again, of course.
I am thinking though that I may wait until next week to do it. WHat do you guys think? Or is it better to try again right away, while it is still in everyone's mind?

Part of the problem with this particular repeal seems to be that people just don't get the idea of a repeal. I have lost count of the number of telegrams I have gotten back from people who think that I am trying to make euthanasia illegal. I am almost ready to create a patent response that says "No, I'm not outlawing euthanasia. Yes, you can still kill your old fogies. No, I'm not removing human rights. Yes, there really are that many problems with the current peice of legislation. No, I will not kiss your ass..."
etc...
Maybe the repeal needs some tweaking, so that people get the point of it.
Or is that a lost cause?

--Rooty

I thought it only took Enn 13 times...

I wasn't around the UN at the time, but I'm sure that I've heard somebody who was here then say it was 15: They could have been wrong, whoever they were, of course...

Maybe the repeal needs some tweaking, so that people get the point of it.
Or is that a lost cause?

--Rooty

"Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain."
(Friedrich von Schiller German dramatist & poet [1759 - 1805]).

"Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain."
(Friedrich von Schiller German dramatist & poet [1759 - 1805]).

OOC: Ah Schiller, long time since I've seen anyone mention him anywhere.

Here's another good quote from him:

"The voice of the majority is no proof of justice"

My Travelling Harem, have you got a list of the delegates who voted for your proposal last time? If you have, you could just drop it in the queue, tg those delegates (guaranteeing you 100-120 approvals) and then tg a few more for the extra votes.

Please say you have, if not, looks like a big tg campaign again. This must get repealed!!!!

Maybe the repeal needs some tweaking, so that people get the point of it.
Or is that a lost cause?

It is a lost cause if people are voting on the title, so possibly. All that needs adding is something along the line of this at the end:

"ALLOWS UN member nations to set their own laws on Euthanasia"

It is a lost cause if people are voting on the title, so possibly. All that needs adding is something along the line of this at the end:

"ALLOWS UN member nations to set their own laws on Euthanasia"

Can't make new law with a repeal. Might work if you used this instead:

"BELIEVING that UN member nations should be able to set their own laws on euthanasia"

Can't make new law with a repeal. Might work if you used this instead:

"BELIEVING that UN member nations should be able to set their own laws on euthanasia"

Isn't that a natsov argument making it illegal and disliked by many?

Maybe you could just put in your telegram:

Currently, there is a resolution legalising Euthanasia. My proposal aims to get rid of this by repealing it meaning that every nation would be able to decide their own laws regarding Euthanasia.

Isn't that a natsov argument making it illegal and disliked by many?

Maybe you could just put in your telegram:

Currently, there is a resolution legalising Euthanasia. My proposal aims to get rid of this by repealing it meaning that every nation would be able to decide their own laws regarding Euthanasia.

It's not illegal so long as it's not the only reason given for the repeal.

Repealing it, yes, would have that effect. However, use of the active term "allows" would amount to making new law.

Ooops my mistake, either way something needs to be added at the end to state that the repeal will not make Euthanasia illegal unless nations outlaw it themselves. That should then clear up the misunderstandings with this repeal.

At the beginning more like. I expect the number of proposals that are read through in their entirity is very very rare, especially if they start off with a negative attitude.

'REMINDING that the removal of Compulsary Euthanasia will not ban all forms of euthanasia, merely allow those states to ban it if they so wish unless it is further legislated upon by the UN'?

'REMINDING that the removal of Compulsary Euthanasia will not ban all forms of euthanasia, merely allow those states to ban it if they so wish unless it is further legislated upon by the UN'?This is correct, but strikes me as silly. The fact that this missed by only three votes, means that tweaking the telegrams is what should be done; the Repeal itself is just fine.

Add a line like that (in plain English) to the telegram, and you can probably snag the three votes you need.

But, given the number of telegrams I am getting back from people who just don't get the idea of a repeal, I think perhaps the repeal does need some sort of work. True, it sounds silly to add in a line explaining what a repeal is for, but it may be necessary.

--Rooty

But, given the number of telegrams I am getting back from people who just don't get the idea of a repeal, I think perhaps the repeal does need some sort of work. True, it sounds silly to add in a line explaining what a repeal is for, but it may be necessary.

--Rooty

As Hack said, add the line to the TG, not the repeal itself.

Yeah.
That could work too I guess.
It just seems so moronic to have to explain what a repeal does to someone who is supposed to be a Regional UN Delegate.

--Rooty

i. It hasn't specified an age, but has said 'over a CERTAIN age'
Euthanasia should not be a matter of age as the mental condition of a person and physical health of that person are what matter in applying euthanasia. The age of the person who is ruled guardian of a person considered for this should be set under other laws thus would not be needed here.

A two year old with cancer that can't be cured will under laws have a guardian who can consent to this for the child. The same should apply if the person is two hundred years old and can't consent for themselves. The guardian of either with advice of doctors should be allowed to decide to let the person die in peace and not apply additional hardships to this person. Also it in most would be a wife still married to the person or the closest kin to them. Being kin is a blood relative, mother, father, brother, sister, son, daughter, or cousin. A wife still married to the person would have power over them under many laws on such. The only excption would be if the person has given preinstructions or assigned somebody specific to have this duty.


. It hasn't determined what is deemed to be a 'life-threatening' illness.Due to the NS world of medical possibilities it would be impossible to say what this is in all NS nations. Thus should be left up to individual nations (players) to set what this is. To some cancer is just a minor thing one gets like a RW cold.. to others even the minor cold is 'LT'.


Involuntary euthanasia is where the patient does not request death, but has it forced upon them because a doctor or medical staff see it in their best interest to die. This could be via a drug or being left to die.Just as this open the door for abuse in doctors killing off patients it also opens the door for abuse when you let doctors keep saying we want to do more test so will hook them up to a 'whatameterbumper' at $1000 and hour they hooked up to it and I will get 32% of that and the hospital gets the rest.

SCARED that doctors abuse the privilege of having Euthanasia legalised:Just as said scared of doctor abuse...

i. There could be a cancer patient who has a chance of living. Then there are cancer patients that die.....


ARGUING against the religious argument in the original resolution, active Euthanasia would be against all religions as it is seen as bad as suicide, so the person would not go to paradise. Active Euthanasia is a mortal sin.First your ague against the regligious arguement then use one to argue against it. As the issue of suicide come up in certain religions as does going to paradise and the moral sin.. Some religions don't believe in letting a doctor do certain things to them others want the best medical care they can get. The only way to respect all in the matter of religion is to make it legal but not mandate it. This and abortion are two issue that both sides have to be protected from the other and here R43 protects both sides form each other. Also how can you say it 'would be against all religions' as you could find at least one in NS that is would not be against. Try Canibalism as a Religion for one, where they euthanasia a person at a certain old age and the family has lunch off their elder.

NOTING that if the individual wants to live, then they should be allowed to.OOC I'm going out of role play on this because this issue is one in real life came face to face with. My mother expressed to my siblings and me several times what she wanted when she got to that point she could not speack for herself. However she never made out a legal document noting this. We had to go throught the hospital rules to let her go when she finaly left us. As they wanted to revive her and do all that to bring her back. To many don't have 'living wills' thus leave family in that posistion and doctors in it also.. As all have their beliefs on this.. My mother wanted to die in peace. We knew this but hospital had their procedures in place. So if a person wants to leave or live then they should take legal action to let folks know in advance what they want. ==back to IC now..

Also NOTING that people can come out of comas after 5-10 years, so no-one should be allowed to make the decision to kill them.And they can die at anytime with or without medical care. OOC my mother was in a coma for two days came out for about 20 hours then left us. IC...

UNDERSTANDING that this resolution was passed by a very small margin, so should be repealed.Showing just how divided folks are on this issue as to what to do about it. You may get the same results on your repeal and win with only a small margin also so then what does it show. Also you may pass a replacement and win by a smaller margin so does that mean it needs to be repealed due to so few voted for it. R43 is in place and for me it does what it is suppose to do protect both sides of this issue of euthanasia and does not mandate to either side what they will do or not do about it. Thus respectiing all views on the issue.

Bump...
When is the next attempt?
Are there going to be any changes?
Even if you take into account http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=482953?
Am I just trying to justified numbered bullets now?
Do we have the list of delegates who approved it last time?

OOC: A repeal will make it to quorum, comfortably. The most shoddily written attempts garner more approvals than any others - even Gay Rights and Metric System. It shouldn't need too big a TG campaign.

A repeal will make it to quorum, but only after much wailing, gnashing of teeth and head beating against the wall.

There.
Fixed.

--Rooty

*bump*

So, anyone interested in yet another tg campaign where we beg people to repeal the UN's worst resolution of all time?

--Rooty