NationStates Jolt Archive

Euthanasia Rights Convention
Category: Not Sure
Description:

AFFIRMING that while the rights of the sentient being are more important than the sovereignty of the nationstate, many disagree whether or not euthanasia is ethical.

RECOGNIZING that euthanasia is a controversial topic that is debated on ethical and moral grounds.

NOTING the recent repeal of the resolution “Legalise Euthanasia”.

FURTHER NOTING the resolution “Abortion Legality Convention”, a resolution that sought to provide a compromise in a controversial issue.

DECLARING that the UN shall allow individual nationstates to decide for themselves their policy on Euthanisia..

DECLARING that no nationstate shall infringe on the sovereignty of another nationstate regarding euthanasia.

Euthanasia Rights Convention
Category: Not Sure
Description:

RECOGNIZING that euthanasia is a controversial topic that is debated on ethical and moral grounds.

As well as religious, political, medical, spiritual, etc.....

NOTING the recent repeal of the resolution “Legalise Euthanasia”.

Irrelevant.

FURTHER NOTING the resolution “Abortion Legality Convention”, a resolution that sought to provide a compromise in a controversial issue.

Irrelevant and misleading.

AFFIRMING that while the rights of the sentient being are more important than the sovereignty of the nationstate,

Debatable.

many disagree that euthanasia is ethical or not.

Agreed, I suppose.

DECLARING that the UN shall not legalize or illegalize euthanasia, but rather allow nations to decide their own policy on the legality of euthanasia.

Which they are already capable of doing in a limited respect. Why the legislation?

PROHIBTING compulsorily euthanasia, which is to be defined as euthanasia made compulsory by the government in any circumstance, except in the case of administrating the death penalty to particularly violent or dangerous criminals.

1) Why prohibit it? I'm not necessarily averse to such a thing, I'd just like to hear some rationale.

2) This puts limits on who can be sentenced to death, thus harshly interfering with the judicial systems of some nations. Unnecessary, to say the least.

FURTHER PROHIBITING the administration of euthanasia to someone who is not a legal adult, a legal adult being defined by each individual nationstate.

Contradictory to Patient Rights Act, which allows a parent/guardian to make informed decisions regarding medical treatment for the patient.

DECLARING that no nationstate shall infringe on the sovereignty of another nationstate regarding euthanasia.

Nice sentiment. I applaud it in fact. Unfortunately, euthanasia, as a medical procedure, is covered by the Patient Rights Act, and, as such, is already protected. Further legislation is possible, but must be very carefully worded to avoid either duplication or contradiction illegalities.

The intent of this proposal is to make illegal the soon to be rampant "Legalize Euthanisia II" or "Illegalize Euthanisia!" as happened after Abortion Rights was repealed. I'm going to need to review Patient's Rights act.

Nice sentiment. I applaud it in fact. Unfortunately, euthanasia, as a medical procedure, is covered by the Patient Rights Act, and, as such, is already protected. Further legislation is possible, but must be very carefully worded to avoid either duplication or contradiction illegalities.

Would the representative from Kivisto please point us to the Patient Rights Act. When we looked through the list of passed resolutions, we were unable to define it.

We are curious how medical procedure is defined, and why the Kivistan representative assumes that euthanasia is automatically defined as a medical procedure.

Respectfully,
Yoash Uriel
Airatum Ambassador to the UN

The intent of this proposal is to make illegal the soon to be rampant "Legalize Euthanisia II" or "Illegalize Euthanisia!" as happened after Abortion Rights was repealed. I'm going to need to review Patient's Rights act.

'Patients Right Act' protects people's [supposed] right to receive any "medical treatment" for which they can get a doctor's approval, but it doesn't actually define the term "medical treatment": As I see it that leaves the national governments free to create their own definitions separately, and a definition that excludes (for example) "any process that is intended to cause the death of one or more members of any sapient species" from that category of actions wouldn't be twisting the concept excessively...

The people of Airatum fully support a resolution such as this one in order to confirm an official position for the UN of allowing nations to decide for themselves on the issue of euthanasia.

Yoash Uriel
Airatum Ambassador to the UN

I had a bit of a difficult time finding the official spot for it, so I just cut and paste it here for you.


A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Yeldan UN Mission

Description: NOTING that a healthy population is a more productive population and the better the overall health of citizens, the better a nation’s economy can thrive;

BELIEVING that all persons have the right to participate in the assessment of their needs, the development of their treatment plans and to receive information concerning their condition and treatment;

ASSERTING that medical professionals must be able to provide these services without government interference in the doctor/patient relationship or corruption;

FURTHER ASSERTING that patients have the right to expect confidential treatment of all communications and records about their care and the right to receive information concerning their condition and treatment;

The General Assembly of the United Nations declares that:

(I) Decisions concerning medical treatment, medical procedures and treatment options shall rest with the patient and his or her attending physician.

(II) 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.

(III) Patients may refuse treatment and such refusal shall be verbal or in writing provided that such refusal does not endanger the health of others.
(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.

(IV) Patients have the right to be given full and accurate information about the nature of their illnesses, diagnostic procedures, the proposed treatment and the costs involved.

(V) Patients have the right to know by name the persons directly and personally involved in their care.

(VI) Consultations between patients and physicians shall be held in the strictest confidentiality and shall not be made available to any third party without the consent of the patient.

(VII) Personal medical records and the contents of such records shall not be made available to any third party without the consent of the patient.

(VIII) No medical facility or physician shall discriminate between patients on grounds of religion, race, sex, nationality, country of birth, or other such grounds.

(IX) For the purposes of this legislation, "patient" may also refer to a legal guardian if the patient is under the age of 16, or is an adult unable to understand his or her rights under this Act.

(X) In cases involving adult conjoined twins who are both capable of exercising their rights under this act, acceptance or refusal of treatment shall be required of each twin. In cases involving minor conjoined twins or in instances where one or both twins are incapable of giving consent, decisions shall rest with the guardian or physician as per Articles III(i) and IX.

Co-Authored by: Waterana

I've highlighted a couple of the salient points I was mentioning

'Patients Right Act' protects people's [supposed] right to receive any "medical treatment" for which they can get a doctor's approval, but it doesn't actually define the term "medical treatment": As I see it that leaves the national governments free to create their own definitions separately, and a definition that excludes (for example) "any process that is intended to cause the death of one or more members of any sapient species" from that category of actions wouldn't be twisting the concept excessively...Exactly. In my opinion and many others, putting a man to death, for example, by injecting them with pottaseum isn't a medical procedure. My nation is in favor of Euthanasia, but we simply believe that nations should have the right to choose whether or not they will allow this highly debated injection.

I had a bit of a difficult time finding the official spot for it, so I just cut and paste it here for you.



I've highlighted a couple of the salient points I was mentioning
Yet, it still fails to define "medical procedure." Can euthanisia truly be defined as a medical procedure?

Thank you for providing the text of the Patients Rights Act.

The people of Airatum do not recognize euthanasia as a medical procedure. Euthanasia is also grounds for a medical practitioner to lose their licensing. Therefore the Patients Rights Act does not protect euthanasia, and there is no conflict with the proposal above.

Yoash Uriel
Airatum Ambassador to the UN

The intent of this proposal is to make illegal the soon to be rampant "Legalize Euthanisia II" or "Illegalize Euthanisia!" as happened after Abortion Rights was repealed. I'm going to need to review Patient's Rights act.


I would like to say this is
1) just a time barrier not an actual contraint it does not in effect stop people want euthanasia they should get it.
2)A waste of space in the crouded amount of reolutions we already have. This slows down the time of looking for a resolution.
3)if it gets to a vote let alone a vote then a repeal it would only slow down the UN putting in other better laws.
4)if you are not aloud to make resolutions banning you from repealing a resolution why should we have resolutions banning people from making other resolutions.

This is a complete waste we need to set an example too by itself it may take up much space but think about if we started making one for everything we did not want passed think about how many resolutions that would be.

Here is a list of some stuff we would have to make resolution banning the making of new resolutions:
-No banning of concription convention
-The capital punishment convention
-The tax freedom convention
-the nuclear threat convention
-Chemical convention
-Mandatory health care convention
-Citizen Rule Required convention
-Mandatory Recycling convention
-The gun law convention
-The Communisim convention
-no new resolutions on jaywalking convention
-Your not allowed to ban skipping convention
-I really don't care I just want to pass a resolution even no matter how shitty it is and I think this might pass because people in nationstates are stupid convention.

I think you get my point on this everything would get it's own resolution and the nat-sov who don't like resolutions would be passing them:eek: So I suggest we stop this blatant sillyness before it grows too large. We will have clogged up the resolutions board fast.

I would like to say this is
1) just a time barrier not an actual contraint it does not in effect stop people want euthanasia they should get it.
2)A waste of space in the crouded amount of reolutions we already have. This slows down the time of looking for a resolution.
3)if it gets to a vote let alone a vote then a repeal it would only slow down the UN putting in other better laws.
4)if you are not aloud to make resolutions banning you from repealing a resolution why should we have resolutions banning people from making other resolutions.

This is a complete waste we need to set an example too by itself it may take up much space but think about if we started making one for everything we did not want passed think about how many resolutions that would be.

Here is a list of some stuff we would have to make resolution banning the making of new resolutions:
-No banning of concription convention
-The capital punishment convention
-The tax freedom convention
-the nuclear threat convention
-Chemical convention
-The gun law convention
-The Communisim convention
-no new resolutions on jaywalking convention
-Your not allowed to ban skipping convention
-I really don't care I just want to pass a resolution even no matter how shitty it is and I think this might pass because people in nationstates are stupid convention.
Wow. This bans future proposals. OMG! Seriously, every resolution does that, because they forbid legislation contrary to what is said in that resolution. If it comes down to it, this resolution can still be repealed. Abortion Convention passed. I fail to see your point.

My point is that all this does is not make a new proposal but ban other ones. If it had a purpose other then to just ban other proposals I would be fine with it but this is just about banning other proposals and is stupid. If you want other proposals not to be made resolutions a much more effective way is NOT TO VOTE FOR THEM.

So do you want me to start making proposals? I really will do it if you want all I would need to do is just make one body and copy and paste it add in a few reasons fill in some blanks submit it. That might take 3 minutes so in lets say an hour I would make 20 proposals if all those get to a vote lets see how much that clogs up the UN.

We thank the honourable member from Quaon for the proposal, herewith the comments from the Telidian delegation.

RECOGNIZING that euthanasia is a controversial topic that is debated on ethical and moral grounds.

There is also a civil liberty argument but I don’t think we need go down that road.

FURTHER NOTING the resolution “Abortion Legality Convention”, a resolution that sought to provide a compromise in a controversial issue.

What is relevant and right for one resolution is not necessarily the case for another. In our humble opinion it is important to judge a resolution on its own merit without relying on intentions or perhaps popular support from another.

AFFIRMING that while the rights of the sentient being are more important than the sovereignty of the nationstate, many disagree that euthanasia is ethical or not.

Badly constructed article in our view. While we understand what you are trying convey, perhaps five minutes spent on rewording may be prove useful.

DECLARING that the UN shall not legalize or illegalize euthanasia, but rather allow nations to decide their own policy on the legality of euthanasia.

As the Kivisto delegation pointed out, with the repeal having been passed we can already do this. Our hunch is that the honourable member wishes to ensure, if this proposal is passed, it would preclude any further resolutions or make it very difficult.

PROHIBTING compulsorily euthanasia, which is to be defined as euthanasia made compulsory by the government in any circumstance, except in the case of administrating the death penalty to particularly violent or dangerous criminals.

We do not feel the word compulsory and euthanasia go hand in hand. Surely a compulsory policy would be a pseudo euthanasia, certainly this differs from the context of euthanasia in the general accepted sense.

DECLARING that no nationstate shall infringe on the sovereignty of another nationstate regarding euthanasia.

Which in our humble view is what this proposal can be accused of also. If for some reason a member state wishes to legislate some sort of ‘compulsory’ euthanasia and this proposal prohibit it, we have infringed on said state’s national sovereignty.

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
Office of UN Relations, Dept for Foreign Affairs
HM Government of Telidia

DECLARING that the UN shall not legalize or illegalize euthanasia, but rather allow nations to decide their own policy on the legality of euthanasia.


Illegal. The UN cannot explicitly prevent future legislation. Implicit prevention is allowed (so saying that "nations shall make the final say" you can do)

We thank the honourable member from Quaon for the proposal, herewith the comments from the Telidian delegation.



There is also a civil liberty argument but I don’t think we need go down that road.



What is relevant and right for one resolution is not necessarily the case for another. In our humble opinion it is important to judge a resolution on its own merit without relying on intentions or perhaps popular support from another.



Badly constructed article in our view. While we understand what you are trying convey, perhaps five minutes spent on rewording may be prove useful.



As the Krioval delegation pointed out, with the repeal having been passed we can already do this. Our hunch is that the honourable member wishes to ensure, if this proposal is passed, it would preclude any further resolutions or make it very difficult.



We do not feel the word compulsory and euthanasia go hand in hand. Surely a compulsory policy would be a pseudo euthanasia, certainly this differs from the context of euthanasia in the general accepted sense.



Which in our humble view is what this proposal can be accused of also. If for some reason a member state wishes to legislate some sort of ‘compulsory’ euthanasia and this proposal prohibit it, we have infringed on said state’s national sovereignty.

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
Office of UN Relations, Dept for Foreign Affairs
HM Government of TelidiaFor one, I believe that a neutral point of view on euthanisia is more important than one for abortion, as euthanisia is actually killing something more than a bunch of cells, but I digress.

All proposals, in some way or another, impose on the rights of the soviergnity of a nationstate. Compulsorary euthanisia is murder, pure and simple. You are killing someone without their consent. Human rights trumps soviergnity.

Illegal. The UN cannot explicitly prevent future legislation. Implicit prevention is allowed (so saying that "nations shall make the final say" you can do)
Point taken. I'll edit.

You prohibit two non-political, non-economic issues. Category, IMO, is moral decency, strength is significant.

You prohibit two non-political, non-economic issues. Category, IMO, is moral decency, strength is significant.
Hmm, I may drop the compulsorary euthanisia line...

All proposals, in some way or another, impose on the rights of the soviergnity of a nationstate. Compulsorary euthanisia is murder, pure and simple. You are killing someone without their consent. Human rights trumps soviergnity.

Thank you for the comments. With regard to the above if that is your position, surely it nullifies any need for the last article? The Quoan delegation is directly using the UN’s authority to further its own agenda on compulsory euthanasia and thus infringing on the national sovereignty of member states. To leave such a clause can be respectfully seen as hypocritical.

Also, if compulsory euthanasia is the Quoan government’s concern, perhaps a definition of such could be in order in our humble opinion.

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
Office of UN Relations, Dept for Foreign Affairs
HM Government of Telidia

For one, I believe that a neutral point of view on euthanisia is more important than one for abortion, as euthanisia is actually killing something more than a bunch of cells, but I digress.
Actually, I think its the other way around. Euthanasia kills someone, but that person gets to make the decision. From the POV of some anti-abortionists, abortion is killing someone without their consent. Euthanasia is a personal choice. It affects no one but the person making the decision.

Robert Bobson
UN Officer

The points in this discussion have been noted and the draft has been editted in accordance.

The points in this discussion have been noted and the draft has been editted in accordance.

Thank you for the re-draft.

The penultimate and ultimate paragraphs of the re-drafted proposal (time stamped 15 June 2006, 6:59pm) remain contradictory in our humble opinion. If we may can the Quaon delegation please confirm what their intent is with this proposal? Is it;

a. to try and preclude any future resolutions or
b. make euthanasia illegal in some case or
c. all of the above?

If the answer is c, regrettably we feel this cannot be achieved as one document. From our point of view this might prove difficult for reasons already mentioned.

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
Office of UN Relations, Dept for Foreign Affairs
HM Government of Telidia

Thank you for the re-draft.

The penultimate and ultimate paragraphs of the re-drafted proposal (time stamped 15 June 2006, 6:59pm) remain contradictory in our humble opinion. If we may can the Quaon delegation please confirm what their intent is with this proposal? Is it;

a. to try and preclude any future resolutions or
b. make euthanasia illegal in some case or
c. all of the above?

If the answer is c, regrettably we feel this cannot be achieved as one document. From our point of view this might prove difficult for reasons already mentioned.

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
Office of UN Relations, Dept for Foreign Affairs
HM Government of TelidiaI apologize. I meant to delete the penultimate clause but forgot to.

AFFIRMING that while the rights of the sentient being are more important than the sovereignty of the nationstate, many disagree whether or not euthanasia is ethical.

Human rights, mild

EDIT: I would also move this to the top and make it a starting point. There's little flow to your arguments and this one feels like you're just walking along on one direction, and then get hit by a truck or something. Its current location is actually quite frustrating to read.

I apologize. I meant to delete the penultimate clause but forgot to.

No problem. I also second the comments made by Mr Macdougall, spend a little time reading through the document so it flows better. We still disagree with the comment on nationstates interfering with national sovereignty, but I believe that is probably because we are of differing opinion to your government. We can agree to disagree.

Best wishes and good luck with the proposal.

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
Office of UN Relations, Dept for Foreign Affairs
HM Government of Telidia

So do you want me to start making proposals? I really will do it if you want all I would need to do is just make one body and copy and paste it add in a few reasons fill in some blanks submit it. That might take 3 minutes so in lets say an hour I would make 20 proposals if all those get to a vote lets see how much that clogs up the UN.Think you better read the game rules before you start doing this.... or you could end up violating one or more of them... thus goodbye...

Simple answer to this question.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+Medical+procedure&meta=

a procedure employed by medical or dental practitioners wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Meh.

Actually, I think its the other way around. Euthanasia kills someone, but that person gets to make the decision.You will find that some folks will not argue with you on this as many will give an example of a person in a coma and somebody else decides for them that they die.

From the POV of some anti-abortionists, abortion is killing someone without their consent.And so could euthanasia.. Thus then it's up to each nation to set their own laws on this and that the UN take a neutral stand and allow them to do it their way.

Euthanasia is a personal choice.First we must have a definition of what it is... as ask a group of people and they could possibly each give you a different one. As have seen some in here look at this issue in regards to age of a person, while I would not consider the age but the mental and physical health of that person.. so is this an issue that should have age restrictions or only deal with the medical issues that would give reason for it to be applied. Then the question comes up is it a medical procedure at all.. I would say it is if meets certian policies others it's not because it simply killing a person.

It affects no one but the person making the decision.Wrong here... Unless that one person has made some written document stating their desires on what shall be done if they can't speak for themselves it effects more than them. Believe me I know as have gone through this with the death of my mother who expressed a desire to be allowed to die but didn't make that desire known to the rest of the world. Just us kids. Thus she spent three days in a coma before she left us... and the doctors because nothing to say what she wanted tried to follow hospital procedure. So this does effect more than just that one person... This is why for some it such a heated issue....

First we must have a definition of what it is... as ask a group of people and they could possibly each give you a different one. As have seen some in here look at this issue in regards to age of a person, while I would not consider the age but the mental and physical health of that person..Here, have some examples.

The act or practice of ending the life of an individual suffering from terminal illness or an incurable condition, as by lethal; injection or the suspension of extraordinary medical treatment
(www.spayusa.org/main_directory/02-facts_and_education/dictionary.html)

Nazi euphemism for the deliberate killings of institutionalized physically, mentally, and emotionally handicapped people. The euthanasia program began in 1939, with German non-Jews as the first victims. The program was later extended to Jews.
(http://fcit.coedu.usf.edu/holocaust/people/CHILDRE3.HTM)

The self-inflicted or assisted act of helping someone to die painlessly, often occurring among people with terminal diseases. The source of many controversial debates, euthanasia remains illegal in many countries.
(www.elissetche.org/dico/E.htm)

painlessly ending the life of a patient with an incurable disease who requests to die
(www.american-depot.com/services/resources_gl_e.asp)

to kill someone/something painlessly. Uselly used in reference to acts taken upon terminally ill individuals. An act whose purpose is to end the suffering of an individual by a painless death.
(www.bio.davidson.edu/people/midorcas/animalphysiology/websites/2004/Dunn/page7.htm)

Euthanasia (Greek, "good death") is the practice of killing a person or animal, in a painless or minimally painful way, for merciful reasons, usually to end their suffering.
(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia)

slight change - involuntary euthanasia....
Where an individual may distinguish between life and death - and may fully realise the difference between them, any medical killing against the person's wishes is involuntary. If, for example, a man knows he is going to experience severe agony, and does not consent to death, euthanasia imposed upon him is legally, classed as murder. ...
(http://encyclopedia.worldvillage.com/s/b/Euthanasia)

or non-voluntary euthanasia....
Where an individual lacks sentience (in a coma, for example) and hence cannot decide, or distinguish, between life and death, such a person cannot give consent or cannot give informed consent, and therefore any euthanasia is not voluntary but also not involuntary. Famously notable as "turning off life-support", it is often done when resuscitation is not expected, or after severe brain damage that renders a person incapable of making life decisions. See Terri Schiavo.
(http://encyclopedia.worldvillage.com/s/b/Euthanasia)

Here, have some examples.[/url])We thank you for the examples and note that in them their is no reference to the age of an individual.. Always mental health or physical health.. thus from what we have seen here not all here are aware of the definition as they want some age put to it.

We look at it as allowing a person to die with some respect.. thus not having to face the pain of continued effects of doctors to keep them alive so they can make a buck.. As many in other debates showed concern of abuse by the doctors killing patients simply to get rid of them. One must recall that doctors don't make money after a patient is dead, they only do when they are alive and they can see them,.... thus reason for abuse in keeping them alive... not killing them. I would agree that such actions as noted in some of your examples I would never support as euthanasia yet know there are others who feel they are perfectly legal actions to take.. This is why we make laws to set what is and what is not legal.. Thus each nation needs to clearly establish laws to fit it's own belief on this issue.. and the UN needs to maintain a neutral ground. as to side one way or other will on create conflict and that we don't need here in the UN over this issue as there are far more important issues that face us. Especialy when there are far more nations outside the UN just watching us and waiting for a weak spot so they can rule us all.

Especialy when there are far more nations outside the UN just watching us and waiting for a weak spot so they can rule us all.

With respect we doubt this is the case. From our own experience non-members pay very little attention to what we get up to here. The only time it does seem to matter is when we try and unilaterally disarm ourselves. That is not to say the UN should not stand as a benchmark for certain behaviour. In some cases we feel it proper for the international community to set a tone on certain subjects.

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
Office of UN Relations, Dept for Foreign Affairs
HM Government of Telidia

Noting "Abortion Legality Convention" that is 7 approvals away from reaching quarom, delegate Quaon withdraws this proposal.

OOC: I suspect the Nazis hijack of the term in RL may have undermined any sort of positive connotations or preconceptions we might have had about this subject. I wonder if on some level there is a mental link between euthanasia and Nazi war crimes on peoples minds? There are people that seem to equate these war crimes with other forms of euthanasia, and that one definition undermines them all.

IC: Anyway, more definitions, very good ones I think:

Euthanasia: the intentional killing by act or omission of a dependent human being for his or her alleged benefit. (The key word here is "intentional". If death is not intended, it is not an act of euthanasia)

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.

Assisted suicide: Someone provides an individual with the information, guidance, and means to take his or her own life with the intention that they will be used for this purpose. When it is a doctor who helps another person to kill themselves it is called "physician assisted suicide."

Euthanasia By Action: Intentionally causing a person's death by performing an action such as by giving a lethal injection.

Euthanasia By Omission: Intentionally causing death by not providing necessary and ordinary (usual and customary) care or food and water.
([url=http://www.euthanasia.com/definitions.html]source[/url)

Noting "Abortion Legality Convention" that is 7 approvals away from reaching quarom, delegate Quaon withdraws this proposal.?

Outlaw Euthanasia
A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency.
Category: Moral Decency
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: New kLemon
Description: CELEBRATING Resoution 162 which repealed the legalisation of euthanasia,
INSISTING that Euthanasia is not a basic human right and should not be made legal,
ARGUING that Euthanasia can be used by hospital staff to terminate a patient they consider to be a waste of time and resources,
ALSO ARGUING that people that have terminal illnesses have painkillers to ease the pain, and should make the most of the life they have left, and that euthanasia is nothing more than a wimps cop-out.
This resolution outlaws euthanasia in the United Nations.This one is currently before the delagates for vote.. I ask you do you want this one to be what the UN says about itself on this issue... As with the repeal this is what we can expect to come up or something that goes the other way and makes all of us impliment it somebody elses way under their beliefs not those of individual nations.. Thus we must take and hold a neutral path and allow each nation to act as they believe on this issue and not allow something like this to become UN policy and divide us...

This one is currently before the delagates for vote.. I ask you do you want this one to be what the UN says about itself on this issue... As with the repeal this is what we can expect to come up or something that goes the other way and makes all of us impliment it somebody elses way under their beliefs not those of individual nations.. Thus we must take and hold a neutral path and allow each nation to act as they believe on this issue and not allow something like this to become UN policy and divide us...

The fearmongering about proposals that will be laughed right out of the UN is not worthy of this body. Considering more than once, a member has called for extermination of the Jews and not one of these proposals has yet reached quarom (or survived long enough, but that's beside the point) shows that the UN contains lunatic extremists all the time, and yet they still do not get their way. The UN will not pass an "outlaw euthanasia" proposal. I will not support a so-called "compromise" based upon false such worthless claims.

Euthanasia Rights Convention
Category: Not Sure
Description:
AFFIRMING that while the rights of the sentient being are more important than the sovereignty of the nationstate, many disagree whether or not euthanasia is ethical.
RECOGNIZING that euthanasia is a controversial topic that is debated on ethical and moral grounds.
NOTING the recent repeal of the resolution “Legalise Euthanasia”.
FURTHER NOTING the resolution “Abortion Legality Convention”, a resolution that sought to provide a compromise in a controversial issue.
DECLARING that the UN shall allow individual nationstates to decide for themselves their policy on Euthanisia..
DECLARING that no nationstate shall infringe on the sovereignty of another nationstate regarding euthanasia.

I would support this resolution.
I'll have to think about possible improvements

--Rooty
PS: Please note that the Euthanasia Legality Convention Resolution has already been proposed, and just made quorum. It does what this above proposal intended to do... that is, not force any nation one way or the other on an issue such as euthanasia.

?
I meant "Euthanisia Legality Convention".

I would support this resolution.
I'll have to think about possible improvements

--Rooty
PS: Please note that the Euthanasia Legality Convention Resolution has already been proposed, and just made quorum. It does what this above proposal intended to do... that is, not force any nation one way or the other on an issue such as euthanasia.We will support the one in querom;
Euthanasia Legality Convention
A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency.
Category: Moral Decency
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Pro-Sovereignty Babes
Description: RECOGNIZING that good people disagree over the issue of Euthanasia. Since euthanasia can be broadly defined to mean very different things (from consent to withdrawing food and water) there are also many degrees of opinion.
ACKNOWLEDGING that there are many nations who believe Euthanasia is a human rights issue, to give people the right to have euthanasia legal, while others see euthanasia as a human rights issue to protect members of their society from active euthanasia. Further acknowledging that there are many more opinions that divide people on this issue.
BELIEVING that for the United Nations to rule decisively on this issue one way or the other would prevent those who disagree to violate their core beliefs from being a part of this world body.
REGRETTING that strong opinions on both sides will fail to bring those who disagree to any reasonable agreement on this issue,
SEEKING to establish a middle ground:
DECLARES that individual nations have the right to declare euthanasia legal or illegal, and to pass legislation extending or restricting the right to Euthanasia.
URGES the UN to pursue unity over all "deeply divisive" issues like abortion and euthanasia. This will prevent a Dis-United Nations and allow more participation from nations who might not otherwise choose to be involved.
but since it's already in querom it will have to stand as is.. as once here it can't be changed just debated on in regards to it being passed or not.

WE see many not wanting this because it for them does nothing. I only hope they see the fact that it does do something; saying the UN majority wishes to remain neutral on this issue and move on. As in it membership has spoken on the issue saying let individual nations make their own laws on it or not make them.

As I posted early, unless the UN membership makes a statement we will continue to have to deal with individual nations dumping their beliefs on us on this issue where here we can say enough.. go do what you want on it and leave us alone to do what we want or don't want to do on it. Thus respecting all members not stepping on those nations that differ with the few.

my god just let the nations have guns your the un if there is a rebelion you guys can send in NATO to take care of it.

my god just let the nations have guns your the un if there is a rebelion you guys can send in NATO to take care of it.

Never post anything again. Just quit while you're ahead.

my god just let the nations have guns your the un if there is a rebelion you guys can send in NATO to take care of it.
Um...what the fuck? Wow, how low is your IQ? 35? I'd think that nations would require their delegates to actually...you know, not be mentally challenged.

OOC: That was all IC! It wasn't a flame!

WE see many not wanting this because it for them does nothing. I only hope they see the fact that it does do something; saying the UN majority wishes to remain neutral on this issue and move on. As in it membership has spoken on the issue saying let individual nations make their own laws on it or not make them. All this proposal does is block. It's negative policy making. It's simply there to stop the UN from taking a stance.

If that's what you want to do on any subject which has the least bit of opposition, then we might as well just say the UN is a mere talking shop, which lacks substance, teeth or vision. We will have agroup of nations, supposedly united, but so shortsighted and insular (on the whole) that they fail to look beyond to fundamental issues common to all peoples.

I prefer my UN to have a little more optimism, a little more vision and a little more constructive and creative thanks.

All this proposal does is block. It's negative policy making. It's simply there to stop the UN from taking a stance.Why does the UN have to lean left or right on an issue. I would think that it's the duty of the UN to bring nations together on issues not drive them apart..

Thus maybe these blocker resolutions are not the solution but don't you feel that if an issue causes this much conflict between members over what to do about it the UN needs to stay neutral yet note that position? Also protect members from each other when they differ to far on the issue.

Maybe if we were all clones same body same mind then we would not need all this.. then again pinch me I'm dreaming...

What conflict?

Through all the euthenasia debate over the repeal ect, I haven't noticed any conflict and very little heat. Even if there was, that is what the UN is for and keeps it interesting. If we just block any subject that makes more than two people frown, then the NSUN is going to get bloody boring bloody quick.

That's because we were so busy banging on PSB and ALC that we forgot to actually debate euthanasia.

Well....perhaps forgot isn't the right term.

But anyways.

All this proposal does is block. It's negative policy making. It's simply there to stop the UN from taking a stance.

It is taking a stance: It's taking the stance that the UN should leave decisions about such a controversial issue (which doesn't actually require international cooperation) to the separate nations, instead of trying to force a single viewpoint -- from either side of the arguement -- on everybody...

Must be nice to have unbiased :rolleyes: mods on your side

A resolution to block possible pro-euthanasia resolutions is no good, in our views.

We believe that the right to die when one wants is one of the human rights. One can certainly disagree, even if we believe such disagreement to be hardly tenable on the basis of mere reason.

But even those who disagree should acknowledge that this kind of debate, about what is in the realm of human rights, pertains rightfully to the scope of interest of UN, even more than of individual states.

A compelling resolution may not be the best way to handle this subject when controversy is still so harsh; however, we think that such ethical subjects should be debated within UN in order to develop a common understanding of the ground of fundamental rights. Couldn't an ethical commission be set up to discuss these themes, instead of perpetually proposing opposite resolutions?

Must be nice to have unbiased :rolleyes: mods on your sideYou got a claim of bias, take it to Moderation.

Well, how is that you have openly come out against National Sovereignty, not biased? You believe it is not a real philosophy and worthy of deletion. I find that biased, Hack. Its not like ELC had paragraphs about pandas or how it would change game mechanics.

I am not stating you use your bias per se, but you have publically come out as biased against National Sovereignty which to me puts many questions if it is best you decide deletion of UN resolutions regarding national sovereignity issues especially without other moderator approval. Isn't usually up to a majority of moderators or something like that? I just find it odd how a 150 delegates get together in around 24 hours to support a resolution and 5 people raise stink...so it gets deleted.

Well, how is that you have openly come out against National Sovereignty, not biased? You believe it is not a real philosophy and worthy of deletion. I find that biased, Hack. Its not like ELC had paragraphs about pandas or how it would change game mechanics.

I am not stating you use your bias per se, but you have publically come out as biased against National Sovereignty which to me puts many questions if it is best you decide deletion of UN resolutions regarding national sovereignity issues especially without other moderator approval. Isn't usually up to a majority of moderators or something like that? I just find it odd how a 150 delegates get together in around 24 hours to support a resolution and 5 people raise stink...so it gets deleted.

Quit while your'e ahead. It was deleted not because of NatSov v. IntFed, it was deleted because of the kind of Proposal it was. Less than a 10th of the proposals (or something near that figure) stays on the proposal list. I guarantee Hack isn't biased against each one of those. The proposal was deleted because it does nothing but block future legislation, which is illegal. As for 150 v. 5? Quality over quantity.

Well, how is that you have openly come out against National Sovereignty, not biased?Oddly enough, this isn't Moderation. Do you require a map?

Hack anti-NatSov?

He's required to uphold the code, but if you look at his list of likes and dislikes, I can assure you he's much more NatSov than a lot of members here. The fact that he will rule against a NatSov proposal like that and actually stick to anti-NatSov policies (not to mention reviving some that have existed but were forgotten) shows he isn't biased.

A resolution to block possible pro-euthanasia resolutions is no good, in our views.

It would also have blocked possible anti-euthanasia resolutions.

We believe that the right to die when one wants is one of the human rights. One can certainly disagree, even if we believe such disagreement to be hardly tenable on the basis of mere reason.

But even those who disagree should acknowledge that this kind of debate, about what is in the realm of human rights, pertains rightfully to the scope of interest of UN, even more than of individual states.

No. Some of us think that as the UN can't tell nations what sorts of government they should have then it has no business telling them how anything less important than that should be handled inside their nations, and should limit itself to resolutions about matters that actually require international cooperation instead...

A compelling resolution may not be the best way to handle this subject when controversy is still so harsh; however, we think that such ethical subjects should be debated within UN in order to develop a common understanding of the ground of fundamental rights. Couldn't an ethical commission be set up to discuss these themes, instead of perpetually proposing opposite resolutions?

OOC: Not under the current game-mechanics, which means that any formal proposal to set up such a commission would be illegal under the UN's rules...