NationStates Jolt Archive

As the repeal on Euthanasia is getting closer to being so want to toss this out for some comments on a replacement. As I'm not a delagate and can't make proposals have been following the issuse and feel it's one that needs to be laid to rest.. thus have some thoughts on it... to toss out..

Understanding: That most member nations have laws in place on the issue of euthanasia based on the desires of that nation in regards to this issue. That these laws have been put in place according to national policy on making laws.

Declares that those nations who don't have laws in place on euthanasia; have full rights to make laws according to national procedures for making such laws on issues of this nature; without any mandates placed on them by the UN or individual member nation as to what should be in those laws.


Mandates that no member nation may charge violation of their laws on euthanasia on citizens of other member nations when they are not within their national borders and the procedure did not take place within the borders of said nation.

Respects the right of each nation to set laws on euthanasia and enforce those laws within their border on citizens of as well as visitors to their nations. Also that each nation has full power to impose their euthanasia laws on citizens wherever they may travel and that nations they visit will respect the home nations laws on euthanasia..

This may be illegal as heck and not be to right form but tried to get in it some of my concerns on the issue..

As feel we need as neutral proposal in place that lays to rest the matter of euthanasia once and for all.. Also if something like this would work for Euthanasia then could see it for Abortion as well as Capital Punishment.. later... which I feel are other issues like Euthanasia that belong in the hands of individual nations to deal with not the UN... as it's place is to keep the peace not side with one group on these issues or another... thus take a neutral stance...

Declares that the UN shall make no proposal to govern euthanasia that will effect the laws of it's membership on euthanasia. Illegal.

Now that reread it see it would be illegal... so will drop that..

Also that each nation has full power to impose their euthanasia laws on citizens wherever they may travel and that nations they visit will respect the home nations laws on euthanasia..For a start, they (your citizens) are not in your country at that time, so why should your laws take precedence over mine? You have absolutely no jurisdiction in my nation. The only laws which matter within my nation are Hirotan and international law – Zeldon law is neither and will not be affecting Zeldon citizens within sovereign Hirotan territory. If they choose to follow Zeldon law, that's fine, as long as it does not infringe on Hirotan or international law.

Secondly it contradicts the earlier part of the same paragraph. The second part blatantly does not “respect the right of each nation to set laws on euthanasia and enforce those law within their border on citizens as well as visitors to their nations.” It does the complete opposite.

Take the second part out and you might have a semblance of neutrality, but right now, this is about as un-neutral as you can get, it exposes your bias on this subject, ignores the absolute fundamentals of international law and national sovereignty (which is the most amusing part of it all), and forces my government to accept your policy on euthanasia within my borders. Not very neutral at all.

As feel we need as neutral proposal in place that lays to rest the matter of euthanasia once and for all..Be realistic, it’s not going to happen. At least when there were no repeals, it was laid to rest. You'll get repeals on this scattered throughout time.

For a start, they (your citizens) are not in your country at that time, so why should your laws take precedence over mine? You have absolutely no jurisdiction in my nation.I believe I said simply to respect the home nations laws not that you have to comply or apply them in your nation. The intent of this is to stop my citizens from running to your nation to avoid my laws and your citizens from running to my nation to avoid your laws. We recognize your laws and that your citizens as such must comply with them at all times.. and can't come to us to avoid them. Thus you also must respect our laws and not allow our citizens to run to you to avoid them. Note tried to keep this on euthanasia to avoid the issue of it going to other laws.. on other issues not related to euthanasia..

Secondly it contradicts the earlier part of the same paragraph. The second part blatantly does not “respect the right of each nation to set laws on euthanasia and enforce those law within their border on citizens as well as visitors to their nations.”The intent of this is again respect. In that citizens of my nation will not perform this in your borders if it is not with respect to your laws.. nor will your citizens come to my nation and perform this if it's not according to my laws.

Be realistic, it’s not going to happen. At least when there were no repeals, it was laid to rest. You'll get repeals on this scattered throughout time.True and one can only hope that some sanity will come out of this that all can live with. As know my posts had faughts as not sure how to work some of them in propoer form.. as was trying to stay neutral and also keep this only on the issue of euthanasia and not cover all laws..

As see the need to respect each nations laws on the issue and protect citizens of each nation from the other on it.. As can see now that harder to do than assumed.

Still as long as we talk on it we may find a neutral solution that we all can live with...

I believe I said simply to respect the home nations laws not that you have to comply or apply them in your nation. The intent of this is to stop my citizens from running to your nation to avoid my laws and your citizens from running to my nation to avoid your laws. We recognize your laws and that your citizens as such must comply with them at all times.. and can't come to us to avoid them. Thus you also must respect our laws and not allow our citizens to run to you to avoid them. Just on this issue of euthanasia..

For a start I don't want be compelled to apply your laws (on euthanasia or anything) to anyone whatsoever within my borders, because your laws have no authority over my nation, for reasons afformentioned. If citizens leave your nation to die elsewhere, it shows they don't respect Zeldon laws either. In fact, if people come to Hirota to die, then that's good for our private health sector, and I'm certainly not going to turn down a source of income for our economy, or deny them a fundamental right (in my governments opinion)

You get the same with tax exiles, who will move to other states to avoid paying tax (RL example: Monaco). Should we start legislating on this as well? What about big businesses relocating to avoid corporate laws?

Once someone leaves our borders, they are not bound by Hirotan law. If they (a Hirotan citizen) broke a law in your country, my nation would seek to supply support to our citizens, via legal support, or apply diplomatic pressure on your government to ensure the punishment was balanced or they could serve the term in their home country, but I would not expect them to worry about breaking Hirotan law abroad (unless those acts were intended to attack the Hirota, then if they ever did come back they'd be in for some trouble).

In summary, if someone want to move abroad to break Hirotan law, we don't really care. Just like we don't care if someone comes to our country to break Zeldon laws (providing they follow ours).

Re: Neutrality. The only way the UN could take a stance of neutrality is to have absolutely no judgement on this matter - the absence of a resolution. In practical terms that might be impossible, because it's only a matter of time before some resolution is tabled, which might be fantastic, it might be tripe.

On this rough musing you posted, it is exposing your bias. You are clearly against euthenasia, and this is an anti-euthenasia draft. If you took out the offending articles, it would be a national soverignty draft, and that would be slightly easier to swallow.

Still as long as we talk on it we may find a neutral solution that we all can live with...

I do not believe that the goal of UN should be to find the minimum common understanding to avoid conflicts. UN should be a forum where we look to new ideas and to promotion of human values. Confronting diverse views should be no more embarassing than it is within a single country.

In my view, the question, barely stated, is: does euthanasia belong to the human rights? If yes, it should be endorsed by UN. If not, member states should be free to make their own laws.

Hence, saying that no UN ruling on this subject should be issued is not a "neutral" statement.

On this rough musing you posted, it is exposing your bias. You are clearly against euthenasia, and this is an anti-euthenasia draft. If you took out the offending articles, it would be a national soverignty draft, and that would be slightly easier to swallow.Believe it or not I'm for euthanasia both in here and in real life.. As have seen to much not to be.. for it.

Thus can understand both sides of the issue have seen it abused either way.. thus in real life spit a family over it. So had hoped to keep this neutral and yet protect and respect all sides of this issue. See that hard to do..

As starting to feel you are right that no resolution is the only neutral one there can be..

Believe it or not I'm for euthanasia both in here and in real life.. As have seen to much not to be.. for it. Thats quite suprising, as the draft you put down had a decidedly anti tone to it. I do apologise for assuming wrongly.

Thus can understand both sides of the issue have seen it abused either way.. thus in real life spit a family over it. So had hoped to keep this neutral and yet protect and respect all sides of this issue. See that hard to do..I think most resolutions have some biased within them, from the motivations of the author, and any contributions made by others. The very words we choose reveal bias.

As starting to feel you are right that no resolution is the only neutral one there can be..Sadly perhaps, I don't think that the absence of a resolution will be about for long

Sadly perhaps, I don't think that the absence of a resolution will be about for longI think saw it already in forum but have not had chance to get to read it yet.. Already see somebody had one to repeal the one on Abortion now in place.. so we are in for a long year ahead.. as seems they saw some 40 of the resolutions needed repeals because they did nothing...