NationStates Jolt Archive

I have been disgusted with UN delegates as every one of the recent Repeal "Legalise Euthanasia" proposals submitted by various members has failed to reach quorum. Anyone with at least half a brain should know that this resolution needs to be repealed because it undermines the rights of each individual member to make up their own minds about a moral issue, in this case being euthanasia.

As mentioned in the current repeal proposal, resolution #43 is disrespectful to anyone with beliefs against euthanasia, religious or otherwise.

It's time to make a stand against those who would try and make our own decisions for us so delegates, please do your part for the next repeal of resolution #43, or any other resolution that enforces one side of a moral debate, and give your approval.

The number of delegates is pathetically high, and i suspect the vast majority of them don't actually consider proposals for approval, which is why it is so hard for a proposal to get the 6%.

As mentioned in the current repeal proposal, resolution #43 is disrespectful to anyone with beliefs against euthanasia, religious or otherwise..


This is why this has not gotten repealed as it keeps those, who on religion, from coming in and getting a proposal passed that may be disrepectful of another religion that looks at death in a different way from those who would ban euthanasia. As R43 makes no requiement that anyone allow euthanasia nor does it ban anyone from allowing it. What it does is protect and respect all in the matter and lets them deal with the issue rather than have somebody else tell them how to deal with it.

You know what. I was going to parody your post, but you just aren't worth it.

They have the right to disagree. They have the right to be picky about what the wording of any repeal reaching quarom should say. They have the right to decide that they disagree. And certainly, the proposers have the responsibility to put in effort in getting their proposals to quarom. Guess what, many don't take that responsibility and in the past month there has been a total of one good attempt.

I have been disgusted with UN delegates as every one of the recent Repeal "Legalise Euthanasia" proposals submitted by various members has failed to reach quorum. Anyone with at least half a brain should know that this resolution needs to be repealed because it undermines the rights of each individual member to make up their own minds about a moral issue, in this case being euthanasia.

As mentioned in the current repeal proposal, resolution #43 is disrespectful to anyone with beliefs against euthanasia, religious or otherwise.

It's time to make a stand against those who would try and make our own decisions for us so delegates, please do your part for the next repeal of resolution #43, or any other resolution that enforces one side of a moral debate, and give your approval.

The number of delegates is pathetically high, and i suspect the vast majority of them don't actually consider proposals for approval, which is why it is so hard for a proposal to get the 6%.

Anyone could use that argument to repeal any proposal. If you want national sovereignty, don't join the UN!

Anyone could use that argument to repeal any proposal. If you want national sovereignty, don't join the UN!
If you don't want to hear about us going on and on about national sovereignty, then don't come to the UN forum.

If you don't want to hear about us going on and on about national sovereignty, then don't come to the UN forum.

I don't have a problem hearing about national sovereignty; I just don't think it's a very good argument. When one joins the UN, they give up some of their sovereignty. It's just a fact.

I don't have a problem hearing about national sovereignty; I just don't think it's a very good argument. When one joins the UN, they give up some of their sovereignty. It's just a fact.
I quite agree.

That resolution should be repealed, if only because of the sappy wording and appeal to emotion.

I am with kLemon, which is why I drafted the repeal in the first place.

--Rooty
PS: All the other discussion on the Euthanasia repeal can be found: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=479525

That resolution should be repealed, if only because of the sappy wording and appeal to emotion.

Not if it could get replaced by an even worse resolution, like the one that's currently being proposed here.

Uh, I'm not seeing any new resolution.
Where are you looking?

--Rooty

Whoops! My bad. Lost track of which thread I was in. :(

However, I'm fairly sure this one would be replaced anyway. Although I'd vote against it, I have no major objection to such a proposal - so long as it doesn't cut out compulsory euthanasia. Gruenberg's retirement homes must remain pride of the region!

Come on now i am agasint this Bill and i strongly hope that all members will not see to it that this Bill dont make it to the floor or better yet come up for a vote....

You are against the repeal or against the original resolution?
Your grammar, or lack thereof, makes it difficult to understand your position.

--Rooty

I am in favor of repealing this resolution. If someone propose it again I will vote in favor. I think to legalize that is equal to recognize that the society has failed to that individual.

Ivantropolis']I am in favor of repealing this resolution. If someone propose it again I will vote in favor. I think to legalize that is equal to recognize that the society has failed to that individual.

How is this so as people die all the time so has soceity failed them by letting them die? This is a question of how they leave this life and move on. The concern here is abuse in killing off an individual before their time. Yet nobody seems to be concerned with keeping them around so doctors can make a buck. They think all doctors want is to save lives and cut costs.

I've been in favour of a repeal for some time.
The first few were badly worded.
The last one you submitted could have been better but it seemed to have enough approval.
I had to get myself extremely drunk so I could keep my oath to hit my head on the Strangers' Bar just because Gruenberg hadn't shown us his proposal as he said he would.
*looks accusingly at Gruenberg's rep*

This is why this has not gotten repealed as it keeps those, who on religion, from coming in and getting a proposal passed that may be disrepectful of another religion that looks at death in a different way from those who would ban euthanasia. As R43 makes no requiement that anyone allow euthanasia nor does it ban anyone from allowing it. What it does is protect and respect all in the matter and lets them deal with the issue rather than have somebody else tell them how to deal with it.Glad someone here said it.

My government is of the opinion that bodily self-determination is more fundamental than the perceived rights of member states.

Not all nations want to become nanny states.

How is this so as people die all the time so has soceity failed them by letting them die? This is a question of how they leave this life and move on. The concern here is abuse in killing off an individual before their time. Yet nobody seems to be concerned with keeping them around so doctors can make a buck. They think all doctors want is to save lives and cut costs.

I was talking of allowing people to kill themselves (euthanasia) because yes people die all time, but not chose to suicide themselves but because other things... Why I was trying to say is that if people had lose their willingness to live is because society has failed to them and is a very easy and short answer just to say yes we don't need you.

Ivantropolis']I was talking of allowing people to kill themselves (euthanasia) because yes people die all time, but not chose to suicide themselves but because other things... Why I was trying to say is that if people had lose their willingness to live is because society has failed to them and is a very easy and short answer just to say yes we don't need you.

suicide is not euthanasia. Run a definition check on google to see the difference (stick define:euthanasia into the search engine, and define:suicide).

Ivantropolis'] if people had lose their willingness to live is because society has failed to them and is a very easy and short answer just to say yes we don't need you.How has society failed them? Then what about those who know it's time to move to the next mile down the road of life so want to do just that. Society wants to keep them here thus then it fails them in not letting them move on. Also there is a point when life here becomes a real burden on the individual and no medical care can do a thing for them. Thus society wants to hold them here and experiment on them while they suffer.

Also doctors make more on treating patients if they are alive as once dead the guy who gets paid is an undertaker not doctor. Thus they one reason for somebody to want them here... as doctors have high insurance payments to make so must have living patients to pay it. So who would say we don't need you to anyone?

suicide is not euthanasia. Run a definition check on google to see the difference (stick define:euthanasia into the search engine, and define:suicide).

I think you should check this just check wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide
and then check the left column where it says TYPES of suicide....... just for your information that you can verify that "definition" you wanted.

Ivantropolis']I think you should check this just check wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide
and then check the left column where it says TYPES of suicide....... just for your information that you can verify that "definition" you wanted.

Oups, I mean the right column. sorry....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide
the right column on that page

Ivantropolis']Oups, I mean the right column. sorry....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide
the right column on that page

Active Euthanasia is often called Patient Assisted Suicide. It is not, directly, suicide, nor are all forms of Euthanasia equivelent to suicide. Passive Euthanasia is very difficult to call suicide since really, all it is is simply denying treatment to the patient.

Just because there is a thesaurus entry that you can play with doesn't mean you can drop it automatically into a conversation. Look up the defintion of what's being addressed. Euthanasia != Suicide. Suicide requires that the person kill themselves. Active Euthanasia (Patient Assisted Suicide) requires that a doctor kill the patient on the patient's request (basically, helping them commit suicide because they are - normally - incapable of doing it themselves).

Of course getting a big bottle of morphine and giving it to your loved one knowing they're going to commit suicide is not covered by euthanasia and remains illegal.
As do suicide pacts: 'first I shoot you then I shoot myself.'

My nation has inadvertantly set up a conflict of interest regarding euthanasia; it is legal, and so is taking a dead individual's organs without their living consent. But despite that, it is up to my government to ensure that there is no foul play; it is not up to the UN to determine the rights and actions of the citizens of member nations when dealing with whether or not an individual can bear the pain of terminal illness. This particular decision is not even up to our government. It is also not up to the UN - in Noreastern Elbonia's view - to force a government to provide costly hospice care, particularly if the patient does not want it. The previous resolution, allowing member nations to legalize euthanasia if they so choose, is justified and the best alternative and should not be repealed.

Euthanasia is often called Patient Assisted Suicide. Euthanasia != Suicide. Suicide requires that the person kill themselves. Active Euthanasia (Patient Assisted Suicide) requires that a doctor kill the patient on the patient's request (basically, helping them commit suicide because they are - normally - incapable of doing it themselves).


These to me are two separate issues.

As a guy loses his job, wife, car, boat, and whatever so decides to end his life.. is suicide.

A person gets cancer or aids and has to deal with the treatment process and the slow loss of functions of body and mind comes with it and the treatment. thus this person reaches a point where they can't do a thing for themselves and returned to what would be a normal life. They are in a state they can't now say let me die, or they have reached a state where they felt it was time to let them go should they reach it. Thus without something to make it legal and take the doctors off the hook to be sued later they will end up being held here. This would be euthanasia.

In the same can see the concern for abuse and need for each nation to establish laws to protect both sides in the issue. Those for it and those against it and see that neither side abuse the other because of their views on the issue. Thus again feel R43 does just that protects both sides and lets each set up the laws according to their beliefs on the issue not others beliefs. Here protecting the individual...

Here protecting the individual...

You mean the individual nation, not the individual citizen, correct?

You mean the individual nation, not the individual citizen, correct?

An individual nations can not exist without individual citizens. Thus you have to protect both or neither will survive. Since the individual citizen is there first then they above the individual nation most be protect first. Failure to do so will result in no individual nation forming. Once the individual nation is formed by individual citizens then they have a duty to protect it or let it fail. So again the key is individual citizens...

Yes, but it is not the individual citizen which is represented here, but the individual member nation. The United Nations, hence the name, deals only with countries as a whole; it is not within its power to try to address the needs or wants of the hundreds of billions of individual citizens currently living their lives. The UN is above any individual government, which in turn is above any individual citizen. Nations should be able to determine for themselves what to do on the issue of euthanasia (I believe you agree with me on this?), each according to its own circumstances. Addressing individual citizens and thus bypassing their governments, is far too vast a task for even the powerful UN. Protecting the citizen may be the goal, but there is no choice but to try to do that through the governments and the governments only.

I am sorry if this was off-topic.

In response to several nations stating that they like Resolution #43 because it protects a nation's right to make the decision over euthanasia, I beg to differ. To quote Resolution #43:

"I propose that euthanasia should be legalised."

While the words "the UN hereby mandates" do not appear before it, it is still legally-binding UN law. I wholeheartedly endorse a repeal that does not ban euthanasia and that is not an emotional, religious or political statement. This is a national decision, so any proposal also needs to take a neutral stance. How's this?




Noting that the UN has agreed not to make moral decisions or to deny nations the right to decide critical issues that affect their own laws, regulations and traditions;

Noting that this resolution uses strong moral overtones and religious terms in justifying its legalization of euthanasia, and condemning this as unnecessarily disrespectful to those with varying religious beliefs;

Noting that the resolution passed by less than 800 votes out of over 20,000 cast;

Believing that every nation must use its own processes and methods of determination to carry out the will of its people, especially regarding such a controversial moral issue as euthanasia;

Recommending that any future proposals dealing with euthanasia at the UN level deal with the potential abuses of euthanasia and respect a nation's rights to self-determination in issues steeped with traditional and cultural questions;

hereby repeals Resolution #43.

I'll support that.

I proposed it once only to have it fall like, 70 votes short of quorum. Any suggestions for improvement?

Yes, but it is not the individual citizen which is represented here, but the individual member nation. The United Nations, hence the name, deals only with countries as a whole.The UN has no ability to think and act. Individuals can only do that thus it only takes a small percentage to gain power over a majority of individuals. As each so called nation has one vote count the number of nations.

Look at say the lowest 51% in population and total their population. Then do the same for the upper 49% in population and total their population. You may be surprised to learn that a majority in population is not present in the 51%.. So why should a minority in population set the rules over a majority in population. Thus is why you see so much opposition to this as a majority of population may believe one thing and not want a minority saying what they will do. On the other hand the majority in population is not allowed to condem others based on different believes in this issue. As to let them here means we always have to do it on all issues. Thus is a majority don't like blue eyes.. then we kill off all blue eyed babies simply because a majority wants that. The UN has to protect all individuals not just nations who have the largest numbers and greater funds. If it doesn't protect the individuals rights then it will never reach peace in this world so long as one individal is not given equal rights.

Noting that the UN has agreed not to make moral decisions or to deny nations the right to decide critical issues that affect their own laws, regulations and traditions;

Noting that this resolution uses strong moral overtones and religious terms in justifying its legalization of euthanasia, and condemning this as unnecessarily disrespectful to those with varying religious beliefs;

Noting that the resolution passed by less than 800 votes out of over 20,000 cast;

Believing that every nation must use its own processes and methods of determination to carry out the will of its people, especially regarding such a controversial moral issue as euthanasia;

Recommending that any future proposals dealing with euthanasia at the UN level deal with the potential abuses of euthanasia and respect a nation's rights to self-determination in issues steeped with traditional and cultural questions;

hereby repeals Resolution #43.

I will also support that. At first, I was hesitant to support a repeal of legalized euthanasia. Just because I see the potential for bans on euthanasia. I don't feel this should be a UN issue. But if the UN takes a position on this, it should be neutral.

Azazel Diener
Leader of the Dominion of Teufelanbetung
Join the Region of Logic and Cooperation today! (http://www.nationstates.net/56576/page=display_region)

I will also support that. At first, I was hesitant to support a repeal of legalized euthanasia. Just because I see the potential for bans on euthanasia. I don't feel this should be a UN issue. But if the UN takes a position on this, it should be neutralLets look at the word legal and what it means as think that is the problem here as people think that because it 'legal' people can just do it anytime they want to do it. It's 'legal' in many nations to own a weapon but not 'legal' to munder somebody with that weapons. As most nations have laws dealing with this issue while allowing ownership of weapons. Smoking though not by any set law legal still doesn't mean that if it were one could walk into your home light up and blow smoke in your face, as you still have legal rights to protect yourself and property thus can kick them in the ass out the door. To make it legal don't mean it has to be done just that if it done in under the right laws then nobody can charge anyone for doing it. How neutral can you get without leaning toward baning it out just outright allowing it.


As poorly worded as R43 is, it still is neutral on the issue even if it poorly stated that way. Thus it works to respect both sides of the issue and is not broken just mared a little due to wording..

Nodlez, do you see that the proposal specifically states:

"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."?

It was certainly the intent of the author to attempt a blanket legalization of euthanasia, which totally oversteps the bounds of the UN. I will now re-propose my call for a repeal of this absurd resolution, though I will need help with the TG campaign. Let's get rid of this abuse of power.

Yes, but it is not the individual citizen which is represented here, but the individual member nation. The United Nations, hence the name, deals only with countries as a whole; it is not within its power to try to address the needs or wants of the hundreds of billions of individual citizens currently living their lives.I disagree. The United Nations has a clear track record of doing so in the past.The UN is above any individual government, which in turn is above any individual citizen. Nations should be able to determine for themselves what to do on the issue of euthanasia (I believe you agree with me on this?), each according to its own circumstances.I disagree, if a member state has the right to self-determination from the UN, then the individual has the right to self determination from the individual - both are the same with variation of scale.
Addressing individual citizens and thus bypassing their governments, is far too vast a task for even the powerful UN.No, it isn't. Nothing is too vast a task for the UN.Protecting the citizen may be the goal, but there is no choice but to try to do that through the governments and the governments only.Given that many governments have a track record of failing to do so, the UN is the only method.

It was certainly the intent of the author to attempt a blanket legalization of euthanasia, which totally oversteps the bounds of the UN.The UN has no boundaries of power.

Yes, but it is not the individual citizen which is represented here, but the individual member nation.


OOC: I've been trying to get people to understand this since I joined NS. Some will just never get it, I'm afraid.

"I propose that euthanasia should be legalised.
It was certainly the intent of the author to attempt a blanket legalization of euthanasia,.So it is legal under this but there is nothing in it that says what conditions can be set on it.

Owning a gun is legal in many nations but when one uses that gun to murder another person they don't go to prison for owning a gun just how they might use that gun.

Owning and driving a car is legal as is drinking in most nation but if a person drinks and gets drunk then drives a car and kills people they are charged and tried for murder not owning the car.

Anything legal is just that and unless there are additions to say it's legal all the time without restriction and limits then, or that it's legal no matter what other laws might be in place doing it might violate.

Also how many laws make things legal once you reach a certain age and if you do it before that age.. sex with a minor regardless of their ability to give consent is in most nations illegal simply because they are a minor while anyone of age can have sex if they want to as long as they in most don't get paid for it. So many things may be legal if you do them by the rules. Even the use of marijuana is legal in some places as long as one follows the rules set on it's use.

No making something legal simply means that individuals have a choice and don't have to fear what others choose on the issue unless they fail to follow the rules on the issue and don't respect each other.

I didn't really want to join the side argument going on here, but your last post makes me. Individual citizens do not and cannot choose whether or not to be members of the UN. Individual nations do. Therefore, it is a covenant of willing nations, much like the real-world UN. Therefore, the UN must answer to its member nations, not to the citizens of said nations. Therefore, the UN must realize the rights of member nations to make their own moral decisions where basic and essential rights are not affected. It is hard to qualify euthanasia as a basic and essential right for all people, especially given the amount of controversy over it. It seems best to leave the decision up to individual nations. This is coming from someone who does support euthanasia rights, by the way.

To all who agree with me, I need someone else to run a TG campaign, as I'm too busy fighting for my "Rights of the Disabled" resolution. Can anyone else do it?

Thank you.

Also, have you noticed that the UN hasn't made a single blanket decision regarding guns, cars or drinking? That would be considered an invasion on national rights.

How does the UN enforce such policies anyway?

I have delayed the legislation of euthanasia, before i even knew that we should be legalising it.


What happens when UN members get the euthanasia issue and make it illegal?

surely we are powerless to police such policy?

How does the UN enforce such policies anyway?

I have delayed the legislation of euthanasia, before i even knew that we should be legalising it.


What happens when UN members get the euthanasia issue and make it illegal?

surely we are powerless to police such policy?

How does the UN enforce such policies anyway?

I have delayed the legislation of euthanasia, before i even knew that we should be legalising it.


What happens when UN members get the euthanasia issue and make it illegal?

surely we are powerless to police such policy?

I would equally oppose any resolution mandating a ban on euthanasia. I believe it is a national issue. Let's take the law off the books mandating legal euthanasia in all nations and let nations think freely here.

I guess at this point I am going to have to be strongly opposed to the repeal of this or any other medical procedure limiting resolution currently passed by the UN. It appears that the resolution on so called "patient's rights" will pass by a wide margin. The resolution so states that, "All citizens of all UN member nations have the right to undergo any medical procedure, except where previous legislation by this body that is still in effect has granted them immunity from giving such rights."

Once this resolution passes, (and unfortunately it will) then any repeal of a resolution like the Euthanasia resolution will allow (until such time as patient's rights are repealed) unlimited access to procedures denied by this resolution.

There must be some serious confusion over what Resolution #43 does. It does NOT ban euthanasia anywhere for any reason. It does NOT give nations the right to make their own decisions on euthanasia.

It DOES force every nation to make euthanasia fully legal, without specifying any sort of restrictions. This is wrong. That's why I'm requesting a repeal. Go read it if you don't understand what's going on here. We need to repeal this to protect our national sovereignty and respect our own cultures and traditions, as well as the will of our people!

There must be some serious confusion over what Resolution #43 does. It does NOT ban euthanasia anywhere for any reason. It does NOT give nations the right to make their own decisions on euthanasia.

It DOES force every nation to make euthanasia fully legal, without specifying any sort of restrictions. This is wrong. That's why I'm requesting a repeal. Go read it if you don't understand what's going on here. We need to repeal this to protect our national sovereignty and respect our own cultures and traditions, as well as the will of our people!

But all people, everywhere, should have the right to choose euthanasia. This is not compulsory euthanasia. Those who don't approve of it are allowed to linger in pain. They should not impose suffering on others.

But the right to euthaneasia can be abused, so shouldn't it be up to the governments to decide what is right for their people? I mean, most government (with the exception of Psycotic Dictatorships and the like) are trying to do what is good for thier people, and what their people want.

There are a number of types of euthanasia, and resolution #43 defines euthanasia in such a way as to make one and only one kind of euthanasia legal.

Voluntary euthanasia: Requested by the patient.
Involuntary euthanasia: Patient cannot request but is assumed to want it.
Non-voluntary euthanasia: Patient cannot request but has previously stated opposition to it, or patient has actively stated opposition to it.

I refer you to the resolution on the floor under vote, Patients Rights Act, clause III.i "A physician may give emergency medical treatment without the patient’s consent if, because of the emergency circumstances, including the patient’s physical or mental state, it is not possible to obtain his consent."

Under resolution 42 involuntary euthanasia is made by close relatives, "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." If the current reslution passes and this resolution is appealed close relatives will have no say wahtsoever in the case of involuntary euthanasia and only the doctor will have the final say; a say that cannot be repealed or even know because with the death of the patient the records remain locked forever since only the patient can release them and being dead, that can't be done. (They just can't do that as a ghost.)

St Edmund's policy on euthansia _

Before we joined the UN it was only legal here under very restricted circumstances.
When we joined the UN we had to legalise it much more freely.
We still require it to be conducted under medical supervision, except perhaps on the battlefield or in certain types of emergencies, in order to help reduce the risk of these laws being abused.
In order to practice medicine legally in St Edmund it is necessary to be registered as a member of either the Kinglish College of Leeches or the Kinglish College of Bonesetters, depending on specialisation.
Both of those colleges possess the legal power to regulate their members' actions, and both of them have consistently voted to count participation in any acts of euthanasia that would be oustide of our traditional limits on that practice as grounds for being struck off of their rolls.
We therefore have very few legal cases of euthanasia...

because with the death of the patient the records remain locked forever since only the patient can release them and being dead, that can't be done. (They just can't do that as a ghost.)

St Edmund has had ghosts testify in court before now...

That's creepy.

That might be a loophole as it doesn't require the approval "in writing."

This could cause government paid psychics to increase dramatically. :D

OOC: I've been trying to get people to understand this since I joined NS. Some will just never get it, I'm afraid.Oh, I recognise what you try and say. But that doesn't change anything. Indeed, it is the millions or billions of individual citizens which are the only thing common to every member state in the UN and beyond. They are what makes your nation, not your government (which is incidentally comprised of more individual citizens). There are variations between nations on every other level.

The individual citizen is the most fundamental international issue of all, because we are all populated by the millions of individual citizens.

Secondly, just because something is not represented does not mean we should not consider them. If all member states were as selfish and insular, there would be no point for the UN to exist beyond a talking shop.

It DOES force every nation to make euthanasia fully legal, without specifying any sort of restrictions.!R43 doesn't keep a nation from setting up restrictions on this all it does is say that it's legal and nothing more. It's legal to own guns in most nations but not use them to murder somebody. Thus when a person murders with a gun they are not tried for owning the gun but for murder.

Thus if a nation has laws on murder such as a line defining it as 'unconsented taking of a persons life by another person is murder' then if you euthanise a person and don't have consent you are brought up on charges of murder as defined by that law. As Euthanasia could be defined as 'consented ending of a life by other than the individual undergoing it; by a doctor or certified medical person.' Note here the adding of more restrictions on who can perform it.. thus if your dogcatcher or priest or wife does it then it could be murder based on probable wording of what murder is in your laws and the fact that only doctors and certified persons can perform it.

Also since the resolution sets no age in it then who does that.....? A nation can set it at say 80 or higher and anyone under that age is out of luck. Also as stated it don't define euthanasia so the nations can do that.. thus have full control over just how 'legal' it might be.

All R43 does is protect individual nations from each other by letting each decide where they stand on the issue.


Everyone over a certain age or with a life-threatening illness should be given the right to decide whether, in such a situation,On the age it clearly leaves that up to each nation and even in here it puts some restrictions on who it's legal for... Also who says what is a life-threatening illness here? If Nation A don't think aids or cancer are then no euthansia is done. If Nation A believes that if you get a day long cold or two day toothache it's life-threatening then person can decide to have it.

It DOES force every nation to make euthanasia fully legal, without specifying any sort of restrictions.

R43 does enforce a number of vital restrictions. I know that in the state of New York many people are actively lobbying for euthanasia practices that would be patently illegal under resolution 43. They include, but are not limited to.

Involuntary euthanasia where the decision is made through the doctor by either the HMO or the financial department of the hospital (because they need the bed).

Non-volunary euthanasia where the decision is made by the HMO or the financial department of the hospital where they want to off a patient who is costly to treat, but outright refuses to die or be killed.

One of the earliest (and some of the worst) espiodes of Star Trek - The Next Generation used a variation of the most common excuse for non-voluntary euthanasia when they wanted to off Wesley Crusher (the lack of which disappointed fans for weeks) because he illegally stepped on the flowers. The argument was that knowing you were going to die (because there was a death penalty for any crime in the area at the time) was cruel punishment and giving a lethal injection before the person was aware of his fatal condition was more "humane." In the ST case it of course removed any posibility of a repeal, and in the medical case it removes any posibility of an against the odds recovery. (Or "miracle" if you feel so inclined.)

And that's in the real world. This is Nation States where Vile Villiany is the credo of a number of nations here. Restricting euthanasia to the patient or if the patient cannot make such a decision "close relatives" is a significant restriction. Euthanasia should not be the decision of doctors, governments, HMOs or even hospitals.

Sithya actually has no formal legislation on the issue of euthanasia. We have no socialised medicine, so therefore we leave it to individual choice as to what kind of treatment the patient wishes to receive, even if that means ending their lives.

On the other hand, the Calvinist Church's unique position in society and its views on the subject means that very few people actually take up the opportunity.

Oh, I recognise what you try and say. But that doesn't change anything. Indeed, it is the millions or billions of individual citizens which are the only thing common to every member state in the UN and beyond. They are what makes your nation, not your government (which is incidentally comprised of more individual citizens). There are variations between nations on every other level.

The individual citizen is the most fundamental international issue of all, because we are all populated by the millions of individual citizens.

Secondly, just because something is not represented does not mean we should not consider them. If all member states were as selfish and insular, there would be no point for the UN to exist beyond a talking shop.
I agree up to a point. No individual - short of incredibly unusual and, surely, unfortunate circumstances - is truly alone. Individual rights are not absolute for, if they were, then no community or society could function. Balance is the key.

Greetings UN Delegates:

WHEREAS the resolution "Legalise Euthanasia" was written to appeal to our emotions;

RECOGNIZING that legislation should be made with a cool head (and not an inflamed heart);

WHEREAS health care and health services are the jurisdiction of each state;

UNDERSTANDING that religious freedoms of an individual may be violated if that individual is euthanised (esp. in cases when those in care of an incapacitated person do not share the same religious or moral beliefs);

IT IS MOVED to repeal United Nations Resolution #43 "Legalise Euthanasia".

ANADAR

The current repeal of Resolution #43 looks like it will not reach quorum again. it's still more than 70 votes shy.
Also, I think the current repeal, although I certainly support it, could use a little work.
To whoever said they thought the first few repeals were poorly worded, as compared with my last repeal... did you even read them? They were the same.

If this doesn't go through, I think we should still hammer away at it. Maybe we need another mass telegram campaign. If yes, then i say we drop the new repeal in the queue on Monday, and all who are interested split up the list and just go to town.
What do you guys think?

--Rooty

I'll help tag.

Greetings UN Delegates:

WHEREAS the resolution "Legalise Euthanasia" was written to appeal to our emotions;As where most of the resolutions back then - didn't invalidate them at all.
RECOGNIZING that legislation should be made with a cool head (and not an inflamed heart);Fair enough.WHEREAS health care and health services are the jurisdiction of each state;Not universally true. Many leave it to the private sector.UNDERSTANDING that religious freedoms of an individual may be violated if that individual is euthanised (esp. in cases when those in care of an incapacitated person do not share the same religious or moral beliefs);Religous freedoms have been trampled over before, no reason this one is any more important than the other.

I'm going to have to oppose. I'd like to see an improvement on this, what I consider an improvement is likely to be different from the supporters of this legislation.

How has that piece of crap legislation survived so many assaults? With my own repeal's pathetic failure, I'm beginning to realize it's about as much of a UN cockroach as Resolution #2, whose 2 lines about freedom in the privacy of the home is supposed to have something to do with sexual freedom.

Still, lessons learned:

1) A shocking amount of delegates honestly believe that Resolution #43 respects national rights to decide on euthanasia.

2) A small handful of pro-euthanasia activists claim that euthanasia is a legitimate basic human rights issue that needs to be protected by the UN.

3) Any effort at derailing this thing by using moral language, personal pronouns, bad grammar, etc. inevitably fail.

4) Any realistic effort to kill the bill will need a logical explanation of the blatant violation of national sovereignty going here, as well as a non-biased assertion of every nation's right to decide on euthanasia on their own.

Hope this helps. Maybe we can create a dream repeal someday.

No, point 4, while something I believe in, is not going to get it through.
There's plenty here who'd want it decided one way or the other. By advocating leaving it free of legislation you isolate yourself from both groups.

How has that piece of crap legislation survived so many assaults? With my own repeal's pathetic failure, I'm beginning to realize it's about as much of a UN cockroach as Resolution #2, whose 2 lines about freedom in the privacy of the home is supposed to have something to do with sexual freedom.
You've got your resolutions confused resolution #2 "Scientific Freedom" has been repealed, you're thinking of resolution #7.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Yeah, that's it. My bad.