NationStates Jolt Archive

[ooc: I couldn't find a thread on this resolution anywhere. If I missed it, please delete or merge this thread.]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. As there is no current resolution at vote and a proposal has reached quorum, the Chair lays before the United Nations the following proposal and deems it a resolution:

Repeal "Individual Self-Determination"

A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution.

Category: Repeal
Resolution: #164
Proposed by: The Sacred Orb

Description: UN Resolution #164: Individual Self-Determination (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=163) (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Strong) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: The United Nations,

AGREEING with the original intent of the resolution, primarily noting that the government should not obstruct the ability of a person to decide their own fate;

CONCERNED with both the infringement on sovereign governments that this resolution entails, and more notably, the open opportunities for abuse that this resolution does not address.

NOTING a substantial ideological shortcoming of the resolution, that the resolution infringes on the rights of religiously-driven governments (with open borders to prevent religious persecution) by forcing them to allow a controversial procedure that may contradict their doctrine;

AND NOTING the following practical shortcomings of the resolution:

-that clause 5, in allowing parents/guardians to make decisions on behalf of those 'uncapable' to decide themselves, allows parents and medical staff to take the life of someone under their care regardless of the reason;

-that clause 5, in considering patients that are "mentally incapable" of making such decisions, does not enumerate what "mentally incapable" shall be, allowing nations to potentially interpret such incapability as simply being below a certain age, allowing parents to legally take their child's life (through the medical system) if they are under a certain age;

-that 'encouraging' nations to require the request to go through a court system (as clause 5 requests) is not strong enough to prevent the above abuses, and that the above abuses are far too severe to be permitted by the UN in any way;

-that clause 7 only states one example of a death-inducing method that should not be permitted; and that "humane, painless and fast-acting" is too vague to serve as adequate criteria for evaluating methods (a gunshot to the head, for example, is painless and fast-acting, and its 'humanity' is impossible to evaluate objectively);

-that clause 3, in citing "severe chronic disease" instead of simply "terminal disease", allows the Right to Die to be invoked on diseases that will not result in death, including notably severe depression and other psychological diseases; essentially, the resolution fails to prevent those with psychological disorders that increase a patient's desire for death from invoking the Right to Die as a form of legal suicide;

-that the entire resolution, by permitting hospitals to start allowing patients to invoke the Right to Die, introduces bizarre and morbid market implications into a mortal situation; the resolution will have the unintented side effect of forcing hospitals, in an attempt to restrict costs and stay in business, to advise their patients based on their abilitity to pay their medical bills; uninsured patients are sure to be more likely to be advised to invoke the Right to Die than patients able to pay their bills.

AND NOTING that the above problems do not simply amount to loopholes that can be exploited, but are full problems that absolutely will have an unintended negative effect.

REPEALS UN Resolution 164, "Individual Self Determination"

ADVOCATES a new resolution reaffirming the right of people to determine their own fate, provided that resolution addresses the above practical concerns and avoids overt infringment on nations' sovereignty.

Co-authored by Cristia Agape

Voting on this proposal will end on Saturday, September 1, 2007. Delegate votes on this resolution will be made available in the usual place (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_delegate_votes).

Debate on the resolution at vote is now in order.

Why is it that every resolution being put up before the UN lately is a repeal? can't we come up with some original ideas here?

Well, i am against this repeal for that matter. I do agree we need more ideas, not repeals. The world is very good with the resolutions we already have

I encourage everyone to vote "for" on this repeal.

If one reads my resolution and then carefully examines the original they will immediately see why this repeal is needed.

A resolution with major, potentially dangerous flaws(threats to individual life) should not be allowed to stand on the books.

The original resolution also leaves no latitude for religious based governments to decide this issue on their own.
Thus potentially forcing a moral dilemma on those governments that may hold strict "right to life" views.

I hope you will see the wisdom in repealing this flawed resolution.

The United Kingdom of Brutland and Norden votes FOR the resolution.

Caterina Fracangole
The Ambassador's Secretary and the Number Cruncher for the Nord-Brutlandese Delegation to the UN

PS. I do expect, though, that since you have mentioned "right to life" views and that the repeal is particularly directed at death and dying, I predict that this thread would spin wildly into that dreaded area about the merits of abortion and euthanasia. Which is not a good omen... So I'm leaving Kyle di Fontana to you to represent Brutland and Norden. *hands the teenager a bulletproof jacket*. Have fun and be safe. ;)

Cookesland votes FOR

Fiore Acquerello
Deputy UN Ambassador

The original resolution...

Description :

Believing every individual has the right to decide their own fate.

Believing no individual should be forced by any person or entity to prolong their own life past the point having any quality of life, if that person is suffering a terminal disease/severe injury and makes a clear, informed decision to end their life.

Mandates:

1: All persons of adult age or over may make the decision to refuse medical treatment for any reason, even if that decision will result in their own death. This includes the signing of DNR (do not resuscitate) orders. The state retains the right to quarantine any person carrying a dangerous communicable disease, and who refuses treatment until that person recovers, accepts treatment, dies naturally, or invokes right to die.

2: All individuals may write a living will stating their wish to invoke right to die in case of future terminal illness or severe accident that may render them incapable of making such wishes known at the time. Living wills may be cancelled or retracted, only by the individual named on them, at any time if the person changes their mind.

3: All persons of adult age or above can at any time invoke a right to die, assisted if necessary, and terminate their own lives if they are suffering a terminal or severe chronic disease or injury that will necessitate the long term use of strong drugs to control pain and/or dependence on others for personal care.

4: Any person who is incapable of making a right to die decision due to their medical condition, but has a living will, must have that will honoured if the conditions in the will match their medical situation. Nations retain the right, and are encouraged to require, that several independent medical assessments by qualified doctors are made of the patient medical state before right to die is carried out.

5: No person may make a right to die decision for another person. Exceptions to this are medical personnel during triage, and parents/guardians of children or adults mentally incapable of making such decisions. In the case of parents/guardians, a nation is strongly encouraged to require that the right to die request go through their legal system to ensure the decision is being made in the best interests of the patient only.

6: No medical professionals may be forced to participate in any form of right to die if it goes against their personal or ethical beliefs. No medical professional may be hindered or prevented from participating in any form of right to die if they agree to be involved.

7: Methods used for right to die must be as humane, painless and fast acting as possible. Starvation, for example, is not permitted.

Votes For : 7,586

Votes Against : 4,647

Implemented : Tue Jul 4 2006

Leetha Talone takes a swig of liquid antacid and stands before the General Assembly.

We do not have an overly long tenure as ambassador and regional delegate. However, it is sufficiently long to observe that it has become de riguer to file repeals on legislation that offends one ideologically, and then make up the boldest of lies to justify the repeal. The misrepresentation of both the original legislation and the underlying argument for repeal in this proposal is bold, creative and inherently unethical. It carries a stench that, if passed, this body will find difficult to leave behind.

We turn our attention to the proposal.

AGREEING with the original intent of the resolution, primarily noting that the government should not obstruct the ability of a person to decide their own fate;

CONCERNED with both the infringement on sovereign governments that this resolution entails, and more notably, the open opportunities for abuse that this resolution does not address.

So much for the author’s supporting the individual's right to determine his own fate. We’ll remind the author at this point that in certain mythologies, lying gets you sent to hell.

NOTING a substantial ideological shortcoming of the resolution, that the resolution infringes on the rights of religiously-driven governments (with open borders to prevent religious persecution) by forcing them to allow a controversial procedure that may contradict their doctrine;
The author makes the error of assuming that all theocracies are ideologically identical and uniformly oppose individual self-determination in matters of life’s end. This is most assuredly not the case as can be seen in the various Asian, Viking, Celtic, vampire and zombie regions of the multiverse. In addition, this "ideological shortcoming" is akin to saying the UN can't outlaw slavery because some dictatorships wish to continue to use slaves.

AND NOTING the following practical shortcomings of the resolution:

-that clause 5, in allowing parents/guardians to make decisions on behalf of those 'uncapable' to decide themselves, allows parents and medical staff to take the life of someone under their care regardless of the reason;
No. it doesn’t. Really. Clause 5 exists within the remit of the resolution’s foregoing clauses. Only the most out-of-context reading could lead to the author’s conclusion. The wording of clause 5 is clear enough to indicate that such a decision would be made by the parties in concert and only within the mandate established by clause 3, which designates the ward be suffering a terminal or severe chronic disease or injury that will necessitate the long term use of strong drugs to control pain and/or dependence on others for personal care. In addition, the resolution encourages involvement of a third objective person via the court system or other government agency to be involved. The author here misconstrues the effect of the resolution and lights the fires of fearmongery. More pointedly, one must ask, who would be expected to make such decisions if not the parents in consultation with the physician?

-that clause 5, in considering patients that are "mentally incapable" of making such decisions, does not enumerate what "mentally incapable" shall be, allowing nations to potentially interpret such incapability as simply being below a certain age, allowing parents to legally take their child's life (through the medical system) if they are under a certain age;
What happened to the author’s goal of empowering the sovereign nation? If nations are to be allowed to decide whether or not their inhabitants have access to life-ending medical care, why shouldn't they be allowed to decide how "mentally incapable" is defined?

-that 'encouraging' nations to require the request to go through a court system (as clause 5 requests) is not strong enough to prevent the above abuses, and that the above abuses are far too severe to be permitted by the UN in any way;
There is just no evidence of wide-spread abuse of those clauses. Interesting that the author criticizes the portion of clause 5 that is intensely national sovereignty friendly, given that it does not require action on the part of a nation that doesn't desire it.
-that clause 7 only states one example of a death-inducing method that should not be permitted; and that "humane, painless and fast-acting" is too vague to serve as adequate criteria for evaluating methods (a gunshot to the head, for example, is painless and fast-acting, and its 'humanity' is impossible to evaluate objectively);
Really? The author is personally incapable of determining whether or not a head-shot is humane or not? If a nation is incapable of applying three specific criteria (not vague at all despite the attempt to denigrate) to any method of ending life, then they have no business having any national sovereignty to exercise. There is a reason starvation is specifically listed as the example of an inappropriate method of ending life. Starvation is incredibly slow, painful, and unfortunately goes hand-in-hand with many of the conditions that trigger end-of-life decisions. It is also a passive means, whereas this resolution mandates an active means of carrying out a patient’s decision.

-that clause 3, in citing "severe chronic disease" instead of simply "terminal disease", allows the Right to Die to be invoked on diseases that will not result in death, including notably severe depression and other psychological diseases; essentially, the resolution fails to prevent those with psychological disorders that increase a patient's desire for death from invoking the Right to Die as a form of legal suicide;
This argument is a complete misrepresentation of reality. By reaching for the most absurd (and abhorrent) case, the author merely proves that there is little wrong with this resolution. If a nation defines ethical medical practice as allowing physician-assisted suicide in cases of depression, then that nation has a much larger (and very much national) problem than this resolution. But even if the resolution does allow severely, chronically depressed individuals to invoke right-to-die, why is that a concern? The resolution specifically exempts physicians from the obligation to participate.

The terminology "severe chronic disease" in the context of the resolution is necessary so that persons experiencing dreadful pain and suffering from such "non-terminal" diseases as emphysema, cancer (which is frequently "not terminaL' until the bitter end), end-stage scleroderma, and persistent vegetative states aren't prohibited from exercising their right of self-determination.

-that the entire resolution, by permitting hospitals to start allowing patients to invoke the Right to Die, introduces bizarre and morbid market implications into a mortal situation; the resolution will have the unintented side effect of forcing hospitals, in an attempt to restrict costs and stay in business, to advise their patients based on their abilitity to pay their medical bills; uninsured patients are sure to be more likely to be advised to invoke the Right to Die than patients able to pay their bills.
Goodness. If there's a problem with uninsured patients, perhaps nations should take a look at addressing that problem rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Again, there is no real evidence that this is happening, merely a projection of bottom-line ethics onto organizations that have never subscribed to such monetarily-focused values.

AND NOTING that the above problems do not simply amount to loopholes that can be exploited, but are full problems that absolutely will have an unintended negative effect.
They're neither loopholes nor problems. Out of six major areas covered in the original resolution, the author has found one via reductio ad absurdum and makes one slippery slope argument.

This repeal deserves to be soundly voted down.

Leetha Talone
UN Ambassador for Rubina
Regional Delegate for User Friendlia


ADVOCATES a new resolution reaffirming the right of people to determine their own fate, provided that resolution addresses the above practical concerns and avoids overt infringment on nations' sovereignty.I don't know, that sounds like a challenge to come up with an even more int-fed friendly version.

After reading through the original resolution, and the repeal, the Altanari delegation has decided to support the repeal.

We are in favor of people having the choice to end their own life, under circumstances such as terminal disease or severe injury, if there is no hope of reversing the condition and the person involved is competent to make such a decision at the time. In Altanar, we have such laws in effect.

But Altanar is not the entire multiverse. We do not feel that this is a choice that should be forced on national governments. There are many nations where the option of choosing to die may be in direct contradiction to their moral, religious, spiritual or cultural values. While we wish the entirety of the nations in the NSUN thought as we did (it would make a lot of things easier), we do not believe in forcing the entirety of the NSUN into our beliefs unless we feel there is a compelling reason to do so. And while the right to end one's life is one we, personally, hold sacrosanct, we do not see the compelling interest in forcing other nations into that choice. We are certain that we will receive the criticism of other nations for this decision, but we have always held that the NSUN should infringe upon the sovereignty of member states only when there is a compelling and undeniable interest to do so. We do not see such an interest here.

- Jinella Agaranth, Ambassador

I know that many would like to argue the merits (or lack thereof) of the resolution and the repeal. However, I was just given a note by the sovereign nation of Tzorsland, to whom Retired WerePenguins owes a lot of gratitude, having created our glorious race of Werepenguins. In this note the leader of Tzorsland expressed concern that some members who have not been named have in their zeal for the repeal of this resolution been accused of spamming regional delegates, specifically the regional delegate to New York, where Tzorsland currently, with its hard-nosed, hard-working, cynical population of 7.207 billion, reside. As a result of this, and because the Master has also included a rather nice bribe of very high grade sushi, including a number of uni hand rolls which I see my secretary, Red Hot has already sampled, Retired WerePenguins will vote no.

Hmmm, broiled pelican sushi with BBQ sauce on a California roll … YUM!

http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o18/tzor/BWWerepenguinBanner.gif

Why is it that every resolution being put up before the UN lately is a repeal? can't we come up with some original ideas here?Did you know that, in the past two months, the UN has considered exactly one repeal (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/UN_Timeline#2007Q3) besides this one? But who needs facts when you got truthiness, right? I eagerly await what "original ideas" your delegation can produce to combat the problem of persisting repeals.

I hope you will see the wisdom in repealing this flawed resolution.Forgive me, Ambassador, but I don't "see the wisdom" in this repeal argument. Simple and flawed, false, misleading, contradictory (preserving national sovereignty vs. protecting the right to self-determination -- which is it?), and slippery-sloped to the point of absurdity. I could just as easily argue that a resolution requiring drivers to come to a full stop at stop signs and stoplights could lead to teenage boys pulling the "stop-short" move on their dates. I hope everyone has seen that episode, and, "Seinfeld" fan or not, that delegations assembled here will reject this repeal. The Federal Republic certainly does.

Cdr. Jenny Chiang
Acting Ambassador to the United Nations

P.S. Having a look at the motto for your listed "co-author," you should probably note that sponsoring proposals at vote is a not good recruitment method. I should know; my region has sponsored dozens of them.

Perhaps the original resolution is mis-titled, given its focus on what is essentially euthanasia as opposed to any definition but the very broadest of "self-determination" I've ever heard. I've known that term to be a synonym for "independence" on levels ranging from regional representation to federalism to secession. While it's a stretch to fit euthanasia into self-determination, that's no reason to repeal this resolution, and neither is the appeal of this repeal attempt.

Intangelon votes against.

The United Nations,

AGREEING with the original intent of the resolution, primarily noting that the government should not obstruct the ability of a person to decide their own fate;

CONCERNED with both the infringement on sovereign governments that this resolution entails, and more notably, the open opportunities for abuse that this resolution does not address.
So the government should not obstruct the ability of a person to decide their own fate, but the resolution infringes on national sovereignty? You realize that the opening clauses of your preamble are self-contradictory, right? Not a good start.

NOTING a substantial ideological shortcoming of the resolution, that the resolution infringes on the rights of religiously-driven governments (with open borders to prevent religious persecution) by forcing them to allow a controversial procedure that may contradict their doctrine;
As pointed out earlier by Ambassador Talone, you make the mistake here of assuming that all "religiously-driven governments" would have the same attitude towards individual self determination. I think it's obvious that this clause is itself ideologically driven and seeks to advance the policies of a certain subset of theocracies.


AND NOTING the following practical shortcomings of the resolution:

-that clause 5, in allowing parents/guardians to make decisions on behalf of those [b]'uncapable'[b] to decide themselves, allows parents and medical staff to take the life of someone under their care regardless of the reason;
Why do you have 'uncapable' in quotes? That's not even a word.

Anyway. This is the first of your many slippery slope arguments, which appear to be the theme of this repeal. Why should we assume that medical personnel during triage would kill patients, or allow them to die, just because they can? Further, why should we assume that parents/guardians would end the lives of those in their care just because they can, or that the attending medical personnel would go along with their request?


-that clause 5, in considering patients that are "mentally incapable" of making such decisions, does not enumerate what "mentally incapable" shall be, allowing nations to potentially interpret such incapability as simply being below a certain age, allowing parents to legally take their child's life (through the medical system) if they are under a certain age;
Reasonable nation theory kicks in here. Why should "mentally incapable" be defined? "Mentally incapable" means mentally incapable.

And do you really think there is a large bloc of UN members out there that is bent on infanticide? And if there is, what would stop them from continuing that practice if Resolution #164 is repealed?

-that 'encouraging' nations to require the request to go through a court system (as clause 5 requests) is not strong enough to prevent the above abuses, and that the above abuses are far too severe to be permitted by the UN in any way;
Again, reasonable nation theory. I think it's safe to say that most, if not all, nations would require some sort of judicial oversight where the ending of a life is concerned. That would be the case even if UNR #164 hadn't encouraged it.

But again, there's that hypothetical group of nations that advocates killing the helpless just because they can. And again, what's to stop them from doing that even if this repeal passes?

-that clause 7 only states one example of a death-inducing method that should not be permitted; and that "humane, painless and fast-acting" is too vague to serve as adequate criteria for evaluating methods (a gunshot to the head, for example, is painless and fast-acting, and its 'humanity' is impossible to evaluate objectively);
So you want "humane, painless and fast-acting" defined as well? Maybe in other articles the author should have defined "parents/guardians", "medical assessments", "medical professionals", "doctors", "persons", "The state", "drugs" and other such arcane terms? Hmmm?

-that clause 3, in citing "severe chronic disease" instead of simply "terminal disease", allows the Right to Die to be invoked on diseases that will not result in death, including notably severe depression and other psychological diseases; essentially, the resolution fails to prevent those with psychological disorders that increase a patient's desire for death from invoking the Right to Die as a form of legal suicide;
More slippery slope. You honestly think doctors are going to assist someone suffering from depression in ending their life?

-that the entire resolution, by permitting hospitals to start allowing patients to invoke the Right to Die, introduces bizarre and morbid market implications into a mortal situation; the resolution will have the unintented side effect of forcing hospitals, in an attempt to restrict costs and stay in business, to advise their patients based on their abilitity to pay their medical bills; uninsured patients are sure to be more likely to be advised to invoke the Right to Die than patients able to pay their bills.
And even more slippery slope. I shouldn't be surprised since it is the theme of the entire repeal.

What planted the notion in your head that doctors and other members of the medical profession are hell-bent on killing as many people as possible?

And I'm not sure what "unintented" and "abilitity" mean.

AND NOTING that the above problems do not simply amount to loopholes that can be exploited, but are full problems that absolutely will have an unintended negative effect.
They are only problems if you happen to have a very vivid (and morbid) imagination.

REPEALS UN Resolution 164, "Individual Self Determination"

ADVOCATES a new resolution reaffirming the right of people to determine their own fate, provided that resolution addresses the above practical concerns and avoids overt infringment on nations' sovereignty.
So, this is a repeal/replace effort from Elite Conservative Circuit? May we assume that the replacement will meet the "lofty" standards of your past legislative efforts?

Hire a proofreader.

Aüþgæþ Spøtyiú
Ambassador

OOC: note that in my above assessment some of my examples of slippery slopes may actually be examples of strawmen. I sometimes get mixed up on the proper terms for "deceitfulness on teh interwebs".

CONCERNED with both the infringement on sovereign governments

Aside from the fact that the first two clauses of the resolution contradict each other… national sovereignty has repeatedly proven itself to be among the thorniest and most difficult subjects of debate in these halls. We find arguments of “this proposal infringes on the rights of nations of type x” overly simplistic and not up to the standards of these honorable assembly.

In resolution 164 the UN has decided it has the right and duty to override at least some aspects of national policy when it comes to the individual’s right to die. Simply saying “nation x will not like it” does not hold. Why should the UN change its mind? A case must be made to prove this is an issue that doesn’t call for UN intervention. In other words; why should the UN be concerned that some theocracies now can’t impose their “right to life” ideology on their subjects?

the resolution will have the unintented side effect of forcing hospitals, in an attempt to restrict costs and stay in business, to advise their patients based on their abilitity to pay their medical bills

We cannot see how the resolution forces hospitals to do anything of this sort. We grant that the original resolution could have benefited from a clause that prevented advising patients to invoke the right to die for financial gain. That being said, we don’t see this shortcoming as grounds for repeal. Furthermore the repeal fails to notice the reduction in insurance costs the original resolution is likely to cause. At least in Logopia, now that insurance companies expect to pay less in lengthy and costly treatments for terminal patients, insurance premiums have become less expensive

clause 7 only states one example of a death-inducing method

Why would this be an argument for repeal? Examples are merely a way to clarify concepts. We do not believe the didactic merits of a resolution are valid grounds for its repeal.

and that "humane, painless and fast-acting" is too vague to serve as adequate criteria for evaluating methods

Quite the contrary, humane, fast-acting and painless are not vague terms. The amount of pain and the time a procedure takes to cause death are definitively measurable. Humane is a term that, while arguably not universally defined to precision, is sufficiently understood internationally. Furthermore, individual nations are quite capable to define within their cultural context.

We agree with honored ambassador Talone. We see the arguments made against clause 5 as flawed in that they take said clause out of context. While we grant that resolution 164 could have benefited from a more bullet proof language as to prevent these absurd interpretations, we don’t believe that this is a valid argument for repeal.

Finally, we see the arguments for this repeal as an attempt to solve imaginary problems by repealing a resolution that did not cause them. That being said, the Logopian government vehemently opposes this repeal effort.

The repeal flatly contradicts itself. Just read the "AGREEING" and "CONCERNED" clauses. It misrepresents the effect of the resolution. It will force no hospital to recommend ending life. And it makes the absurd claim that "humane, painless and fast-acting" is vague language.

Ausserland has voted NO and respectfully urges our colleagues to do likewise. We've had enough rotten logic and misrepresentation in repeals.

Balthasar H. von Aschenbach
Prime Minister

In the Name of the Eternal Kawaii, may the Cute One be praised.

We rise in whole-hearted support of this repeal. The original resolution, inaccurately-titled "Individual Self-Determination", is unworthy of this august body.

The original resolution's opening passages lay clear its hubris and folly:

Believing every individual has the right to decide their own fate.

Believing no individual should be forced by any person or entity to prolong their own life past the point having any quality of life, if that person is suffering a terminal disease/severe injury and makes a clear, informed decision to end their life.

No individual has the right to decide their own fate. We did not choose the circumstances of our birth, our family, our nation or world. All of this was provided for us by our Creator in Its infinite wisdom. Why then, do we presume to say that this or that circumstance precludes one from having "any quality of life"? Can we grant ourselves a better life than the one our Creator has given us?

This resolution is not about "fate", or even "self-determination". Let us speak clearly: The original resolution is about death. Specifically, the supposed "right" of people to end their own lives, for whatever reason they may choose.

Death, however, is not a right. It is an escape--an escape from one's responsibility to one's fellow individual, to one's family and people, to the world. Like a poisonous serpent hiding in a jeweled chest, the original resolution cloaks the NSUN's blessing upon the practice of suicide in the language of compassion. Do not be deceived, esteemed delegates: the original resolution is an affront to decency, and must be repealed forthwith.

Darren punches the red button on his desk, muttering "Why should I argue when Rubina and Yelda have already addressed this thing's flaws?"

The TALLY CLERK. Goobergunchia's vote against Repeal "Individual Self-Determination" has been noted.

Destroying a misleading resolution with a misleading repeal? So wonderfully poetic. I'll have a few drinks in the author's honor.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

Darren punches the red button on his desk...

The TALLY CLERK. Goobergunchia's vote against Repeal "Individual Self-Determination" has been noted.A big red button? That's not how you vote! You need a voting card, and a bunch of complicated PIN numbers (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11658220&postcount=270). http://209.85.48.12/6802/45/emo/emotions33%5B1%5D.gif

The buttons make Darren happy, and we'd rather not let him have a tantrum on the UN floor. Luckily, we found Lord Evif's PIN number written down on the inside of his topmost desk drawer in our office right after we disappeared, so I've been quietly casting the actual votes since Darren's appointment.

Also, if you or anybody else have seen our old ambassador, we want him back. :)

Benjamin Kareth
Legislative Assistant to [Lord] Michael Evif

A big red button? That's not how you vote!

[ Shhhhhh! We've secretly replaced Darren's ballot with a Folgers Big Red Button. Let's see if he notices. ]

Many esteemed ambassadors have quite adequately demonstrated the inadequacies and inaccuracies of this repeal argument, making us wish briefly that more member nations read the discussions of resolutions at vote than is evidently the case. That being the case, we will confine ourselves to addressing one small ideological point that amuses us greatly.

-that the entire resolution, by permitting hospitals to start allowing patients to invoke the Right to Die, introduces bizarre and morbid market implications into a mortal situation; the resolution will have the unintented side effect of forcing hospitals, in an attempt to restrict costs and stay in business, to advise their patients based on their abilitity to pay their medical bills; uninsured patients are sure to be more likely to be advised to invoke the Right to Die than patients able to pay their bills.

We are delighted to see a strongly conservative alliance acknowledge that market forces in the context of healthcare are bizarre and morbid. The briefest of considerations show that the resolution is entirely irrelevant to the argument, since any perturbing force on the market, including the market itself, has such effects. Should this repeal pass, heaven forfend, we shall rest easier for the knowledge that such an admission has been written indelibly into the UN's statute books.

Little more needs to be said, honestly. All of our objections have already been raised by other delegates. As such, our vote has been cast against this travesty. We did not support the original resolution, but this repeal is just chasing bad law with more bad law.


~ Meribeth Collins
The Submerged Queendom of Remba

Though I do agree the wording in this repeal is a bit contradictory, as a repeal it seems to hardly matter to me HOW you phrase your opening statement. Certainly it's not the best idea to have a badly written repeal, but isn't it worse to have a bad resolution in action? I would rather see the original resolution removed than to keep it simply because the repeal is not as perfect is it could be.

Don't take this as an opportunity to just shoot down a repeal. What you really need to be analyzing is the original resolution. Should it stay? Vote "for" or "against" based on that, and that alone.

In Intelligenstan's official religion, Pastafarianism, euthanasia is not only allowed, but highly encouraged. There is no reason any suffering person would want to delay his journey up into heaven where a stripper factory and a beer volcano await him. Enough with the religious fanatics who would rather have someone suffer unmeasurable pain just because they believe in the 'blah balh blah' oh wait no i meant to say 'sanctity of human life'.

A big red button? That's not how you vote! You need a voting card, and a bunch of complicated PIN numbers (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11658220&postcount=270). http://209.85.48.12/6802/45/emo/emotions33%5B1%5D.gif

The Big Red Button is designed to make the voting process "EASY."

http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w213/ninja_oishi/ICONATOR_9c43abce0b939fe9dea00d1ed6.jpg

My Fellow delegates it is with great sadness that I, Sen. Sulla, vote against this repeal. It is tragic on many levels. Firstly, we really dislike this law. Secondly, the general belief of the Palentine has been to support the removal of as many odiferous laws as possible. And thirdly, this is repealing a Human Rights Resolution, a member of a family of resolutions that the Palentine really hates with an unholy passion. Sometimes, however, it is far better to live with a horrible resolution one knows(and can get around with loopholes) than to repeal a law and trust this august body to replace it with a new law.
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

As Ms Semanova appears to have ignored the terms of the original resolution when constructing the argument for its repeal, so will I.

Fortunately,as I have a game of Twister awaiting me elsewhere, this relieves me of the need to deal with the discrepancies that others have already exposed between the original's clauses and the repeal's misinterpretations of them.

Instead, I will discuss the eloquent appeal of the delegate for Scheissenwald:

Should it stay? Vote "for" or "against" based on that, and that alone.

Now I'd very much like to vote "for" or "against" on that alone -- I'd be voting against repeal, in favour of "stay", incidentally -- but Ms Seranova won't let me.

Instead, she asks me to vote also on the question of whether the UN should or shouldn't advocate "a new resolution reaffirming the right of people to determine their own fate".

On that question, then, I'm also voting against. I don't think the UN, when removing an old resolution, should tie its member nations to producing a new one. There are still resolutions on the books that should simply be given a dignified burial, not zombified in some new, niftier form. I strongly oppose the precedent this part of the repeal sets -- that a repeal can formally seek a replacement.

What's more, Ms Semanova wants a proviso that any new resolution should address "the above practical concerns" and avoid "overt infringment on nations' sovereignty".

I'm against that, too. I don't think that one nation, when trying to do one thing in a repeal, should also do another. This is trying to make the UN set a constraint, however limited, on its subsequent decisions. The content of a new proposal is up to the proposer. A repeal repeals; it doesn't try to write its replacement, or prevent others from writing it.

-- Dicey Reilly, wrongfully President for Life of Ardchoille.

Ardchoilleans;13007526']Ms Semanova
Speaking of which, where are the representatives of The Sacred Orb and the co-author, Cristia Agape? Why are they not in here defending their repeal? Why are they not trying to refute the arguments leveled against it?

Aüþgæþ Spøtyiú
Ambassador

Speaking of which, where are the representatives of The Sacred Orb and the co-author, Cristia Agape? Why are they not in here defending their repeal? Why are they not trying to refute the arguments leveled against it?Well, the Sacred Orb made that one post, which is actually 3% of all the posts made so far. You have to give them that.

Well, the Sacred Orb made that one post, which is actually 3% of all the posts made so far. You have to give them that.
But they haven't addressed the opposing arguments. I'd be interested to hear what they have to say.

Aüþgæþ Spøtyiú
Ambassador
Nitpicking jackass

But they haven't addressed the opposing arguments. I'd be interested to hear what they have to say.

Aüþgæþ Spøtyiú
Ambassador
Nitpicking jackass

This posting started YESTERDAY.

This posting started YESTERDAY.
Your point?

This is the second day of debate. Why have they not responded to accusations leveled against their repeal?

Aüþgæþ Spøtyiú
Ambassador
Nitpicking jackass

Though I do agree the wording in this repeal is a bit contradictory, as a repeal it seems to hardly matter to me HOW you phrase your opening statement. Certainly it's not the best idea to have a badly written repeal, but isn't it worse to have a bad resolution in action? I would rather see the original resolution removed than to keep it simply because the repeal is not as perfect is it could be.

Don't take this as an opportunity to just shoot down a repeal. What you really need to be analyzing is the original resolution. Should it stay? Vote "for" or "against" based on that, and that alone.

We cannot agree with the honorable representative. This repeal contradicts itself and contains blatantly spurious arguments. It's bad legislation. We've seen several repeals like that over the past few months, one of which actually was adopted by the Assembly. And if another one passes, we're sure to see more.

It's a matter of motivational psychology. Authoring a resolution which is adopted by this Assembly is a "win" for the author. It reinforces and encourages the behavior. It encourages him or her and others to repeat it. Voting for badly written, badly thought-out legislation -- repeal or otherwise -- simply raises the probability that we'll see more of the same ilk.

If the representative believes that the resolution facing repeal truly deserves it, we'd invite him to draft a repeal which provides sound and valid arguments. We promise to give it careful consideration. But our concern for the quality of legislation submitted to this Assembly leads us to refuse to vote for garbage.

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambassador to the United Nations

[ Shhhhhh! We've secretly replaced Darren's ballot with a Folgers Big Red Button. Let's see if he notices. ]

*Darren's wife's voice in her head echoes*

Hmmm...Darren never has a second cup at home...

[ooc: Darren doesn't have a wife. He's the 19-year-old nephew of the President, which is why he's a spoiled brat.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12996757&postcount=6479]

The original proposal, Resolution #164, is absolutely absurd.

Medical personnel giving patients in triage the right to die?

NO.

Medical personnel are there to PRESERVE life (if possible), not destroy it.

If someone wants to terminate his/her own life, let it be in the privacy of their own home, NOT in front of medical personnel (whether they may be civilian medical personnel, or military medical personnel) or out in public.

I sincerely hope that the rest of you see the absurdity of Resolution #164

Therefore,

I, President Vladimir Kozentov of Chernobyl Power Plant votes to repeal Resolution #164 'Individual Self-Determination'.


President Vladimir Kozentov
Leader of Chernobyl Power Plant.

I believe this resolution is not needed and is impractical. If you want it done a different way, the only way i see is approving it through a court system. Vote against appealing this law.

What right do those nations who still hold to outdated religious dogma have to our respect, let alone that to brow-beating the United Nations into submission to their will? The original resolution should therefore stand on those grounds alone. However, should such arguments be insuufficient for convincing, this resolution also eliminates the right to die from the international legal body, infringes on the rights of parents or guardians to stand as proxies for their under-aged or indigentchildren, and makes far too many exceptions and shows far too much defference to the sovereignty of member states. If a state does not like the original resolution, especially on religious grounds, let it stand up and leave this body, and take its dogmatic garbage somewhere else.

Why can't anyone write proposals and repeals in plain Engrish anymore?

I'll probably abstain, because I don't really care either way. It is not the UN's job to affirm the right of euthanasia to people. Then again, it ain't the UN's job to deny it to them either.

-- Marcus Diegaus III

What right do those nations who still hold to outdated religious dogma have to our respect, let alone that to brow-beating the United Nations into submission to their will? The original resolution should therefore stand on those grounds alone. However, should such arguments be insuufficient for convincing, this resolution also eliminates the right to die from the international legal body, infringes on the rights of parents or guardians to stand as proxies for their under-aged or indigentchildren, and makes far too many exceptions and shows far too much defference to the sovereignty of member states. If a state does not like the original resolution, especially on religious grounds, let it stand up and leave this body, and take its dogmatic garbage somewhere else.

Them's fightin' words.

*hovers hand over red button*

You do not want to see what happens when I press this.

~Dr. Jules Hodz

What right do those nations who still hold to outdated religious dogma have to our respect, let alone that to brow-beating the United Nations into submission to their will? The original resolution should therefore stand on those grounds alone.

I could just as easily ask what right do those nations who don't subscribe to a particular religion have to demand that every other state follow their lead, or force an undesired ideological choice upon them. Simply saying "I don't like religion" isn't a reason for the original resolution to stand. I do admire your dogmatic willingness to trample over anyone who doesn't agree with you, though. It must make life easier to be so simpleminded...er...I mean, determined.

However, should such arguments be insuufficient for convincing, this resolution also eliminates the right to die from the international legal body, infringes on the rights of parents or guardians to stand as proxies for their under-aged or indigentchildren, and makes far too many exceptions and shows far too much defference to the sovereignty of member states.

Now you're starting to make something that vaguely resembles an argument. Good for you. Maybe there's hope for you yet...not much, but some. However, as individual member states can continue to give their people the option to self-induced or assisted death if they choose, even if this repeal passes, I'm not entirely convinced that eliminating a mandatory "right to die" really matters all that much. If this repeal were somehow creating an international ban on the "right to die", then I'd be worried. But it doesn't. As far as showing "far too much defference (sic) to the sovereignty of member states", that's exactly the problem the Altanari delegation has with the original resolution, namely that it doesn't show any deference at all to that idea. Instead, it forces the "right to die" to be adopted by member states who may have a serious and genuine moral, philosophical or religious objection to it. Such objections deserve better than to be run roughshod over by self-righteous states, and their pompous delegates, who would blithely dismiss them as "outdated dogma". And this objection, incidentally, is coming from a delegation whose nation allows people the right to die under many circumstances.

If a state does not like the original resolution, especially on religious grounds, let it stand up and leave this body, and take its dogmatic garbage somewhere else.

1) You aren't anyone to tell any other delegation to leave the UN.
2) Do you even realize you're drowning us in your own dogmatic garbage while trying to repel what you consider dogmatic garbage?

- Jinella Agaranth, Ambassador

The government has the right, nay, the duty to decide for the ill, whether or not they should be kept alive or not. The right to life [B]is not[B] the right to die. This resolution leaves room for the wreckless destruction of lives that could be otherwise productive. Do not let the United Nations dictate to you whether or not an individual can commit medical suicide. Life is too precious to be intrusted to one person without first examining how it would effect the enviornment in which he or she lives.

If you want to make a law in your own nation to have what that original statement was, that is your buisness. Why should you force the rest of us into following your ideas? This repeal will give nations the power to put laws like this into effect while not forcing everyone to follow you.

Rivendell-Lothlorien votes YES on this repeal

The government has the right, nay, the duty to decide for the ill, whether or not they should be kept alive or not.

Iris Fairchild shivers as a knot tightens in her stomach

Well, I am sure glad I was not born under the jurisdiction or your government. How ill is it safe to be before your government decides one should not be kept alive?

Life is too precious to be intrusted to one person without first examining how it would effect the enviornment in which he or she lives.

Are you implying that the value of human life depends on the individual's impact in their environment? The life of a hermit is now less valuable than the life of a movie star?

Though I believe it is your intention to advocate for the value of human life, I must say your arguments seem to support the exact opposite.

Do not let the United Nations dictate to you whether or not an individual can commit medical suicide

I at least partially agree, given the nature of this subject I don't believe the UN should try to impose either view. However I think it is a profound disservice for this institution to vote for an incoherent, self contradictory, and misleading resolution, based only on the effect it would have. This of course is a matter of principle. You are quite free to cast your vote based on a flip coin if you so desire.

As a Catholic nation, I firmly agree with this appeal.
Some leaders might agree on moral beliefs not attached to a religion.

Unless the illness is terminal or some standard of suffering is met, my government cannot condone medical suicide.

But defining a standard of suffering would prove troublesome.

We are glad to see a new voice in these chambers, but we would ask one small point of clarification from the Ambassador of Blessed Adeline. Does the ambassador agree with the concept of repealing the resolution "Individual Self-Determination", or does the ambassador support the arguments of this particular repeal, inaccurate as they have been demonstrated to be? Regrettably it is the latter that the honoured ambassador is doing, and we would hope that a religious nation would feel deeply uncomfortable in supporting something that can only be seen ultimately as untruthful.

Nay, nay, nay! The complete misrepresentation of the repeal makes this an abhorrent way to go about the repeal of a flawed resolution. I hardly see the point of using false logic and lies to "do good." That's not the point atall!

Harmalan Shandreth
Ambassador Plenipotentiary

Them's fightin' words.

*hovers hand over red button*

You do not want to see what happens when I press this.

~Dr. Jules Hodz

I do! I do! I do!

-- M. Diegaus III

Allow me to clarify some of my earlier statements. There is a direct correllation between productivity, and whether or not someone is really needed enough to be kept alive. Its as simple as that. Do you have a family that needs you? Great! Live on! The state doesn't want to raise your kids! Are you an important specialist working for the government? A Doctor? A Lawyer? Do you have a job? No? Why should the people pay to keep you alive?

The NSUN is falling apart.

Why are there proposals and resolutions that force a certain action on a nation when it is something they can solve for themselves?

Euthanasia is something an INDIVIDUAL nation should be concerned about, rather than having the THOUSANDS of UN members attempting to force a certain ideal on a nation.

That past resolution (the one before the 'Repeal SPCC') was one of those topics that the UN doesn't need to vote on, because an individual nation can solve that for themselves.


ANYONE who tries to post a resolution or proposal like that is abusing his/her power as a UN member.

I hope these words discourage the posting of a resolution/proposal that is none of the UN's business.


President Vladimir Kozentov
Leader of Chernobyl Power Plant

The doctor has to consent. So theoretically every doctor in your nation could say no. Especially if there are orders from above.

There has been much debate in my countries over this on political, ethical and religious grounds but there is enough leeway that when we do come to a decision we will make recommendations to the GT Health Division on how to abide by the convention. Even if we did make...recommendations of restrain we would not want this repealed, and certainly not with this abomination of a repeal.
I presume suicide would still be illegal in your state otherwise?

The way to change others is from within the system...but if you simply don't want it to change you it's easy enough to resign membership you know. Individuals can solve most things by themselves, but then...what would we legislate on?

Speaking of which, where are the representatives of The Sacred Orb and the co-author, Cristia Agape? Why are they not in here defending their repeal? Why are they not trying to refute the arguments leveled against it?

Because the people who read this thread make up probably, oh, .1% of the voting body of the NationStates UN. Going to great lengths to defend our resolution here would amount to a waste of time, at best.

Because the people who read this thread make up probably, oh, .1% of the voting body of the NationStates UN. Going to great lengths to defend our resolution here would amount to a waste of time, at best.
So that's it? You're just not even going to answer the accusations or try to counter the arguments of the opposition? Your cowardice is astounding.

Aüþgæþ Spøtyiú
Ambassador
Nitpicking jackass
Gas Bag

:headbang: I feel as though nobody has been stating the obvious. Nobody has even mentioned the elephant in the room. How can we truely trust someone to know if it is better for society if they are dead or not. Ending one's own suffering is wholly selfish if an individual still has something to contribute to society. Thus, a nation should not be deprived of the wisdom of its thinkers, if its thinkers are cowards. The UN has no right to make any sort of legislation of this sort. This is clearly an infringement on the rights of its member states. To the drafters of this proposal, my message is clear: :upyours:

Allow me to repost my comments from earlier in the discussion, in case you weren't able to find them:

The United Nations,

AGREEING with the original intent of the resolution, primarily noting that the government should not obstruct the ability of a person to decide their own fate;

CONCERNED with both the infringement on sovereign governments that this resolution entails, and more notably, the open opportunities for abuse that this resolution does not address.
So the government should not obstruct the ability of a person to decide their own fate, but the resolution infringes on national sovereignty? You realize that the opening clauses of your preamble are self-contradictory, right? Not a good start.

NOTING a substantial ideological shortcoming of the resolution, that the resolution infringes on the rights of religiously-driven governments (with open borders to prevent religious persecution) by forcing them to allow a controversial procedure that may contradict their doctrine;
As pointed out earlier by Ambassador Talone, you make the mistake here of assuming that all "religiously-driven governments" would have the same attitude towards individual self determination. I think it's obvious that this clause is itself ideologically driven and seeks to advance the policies of a certain subset of theocracies.


AND NOTING the following practical shortcomings of the resolution:

-that clause 5, in allowing parents/guardians to make decisions on behalf of those 'uncapable' to decide themselves, allows parents and medical staff to take the life of someone under their care regardless of the reason;
Why do you have 'uncapable' in quotes? That's not even a word.

Anyway. This is the first of your many slippery slope arguments, which appear to be the theme of this repeal. Why should we assume that medical personnel during triage would kill patients, or allow them to die, just because they can? Further, why should we assume that parents/guardians would end the lives of those in their care just because they can, or that the attending medical personnel would go along with their request?


-that clause 5, in considering patients that are "mentally incapable" of making such decisions, does not enumerate what "mentally incapable" shall be, allowing nations to potentially interpret such incapability as simply being below a certain age, allowing parents to legally take their child's life (through the medical system) if they are under a certain age;
Reasonable nation theory kicks in here. Why should "mentally incapable" be defined? "Mentally incapable" means mentally incapable.

And do you really think there is a large bloc of UN members out there that is bent on infanticide? And if there is, what would stop them from continuing that practice if Resolution #164 is repealed?

-that 'encouraging' nations to require the request to go through a court system (as clause 5 requests) is not strong enough to prevent the above abuses, and that the above abuses are far too severe to be permitted by the UN in any way;
Again, reasonable nation theory. I think it's safe to say that most, if not all, nations would require some sort of judicial oversight where the ending of a life is concerned. That would be the case even if UNR #164 hadn't encouraged it.

But again, there's that hypothetical group of nations that advocates killing the helpless just because they can. And again, what's to stop them from doing that even if this repeal passes?

-that clause 7 only states one example of a death-inducing method that should not be permitted; and that "humane, painless and fast-acting" is too vague to serve as adequate criteria for evaluating methods (a gunshot to the head, for example, is painless and fast-acting, and its 'humanity' is impossible to evaluate objectively);
So you want "humane, painless and fast-acting" defined as well? Maybe in other articles the author should have defined "parents/guardians", "medical assessments", "medical professionals", "doctors", "persons", "The state", "drugs" and other such arcane terms? Hmmm?

-that clause 3, in citing "severe chronic disease" instead of simply "terminal disease", allows the Right to Die to be invoked on diseases that will not result in death, including notably severe depression and other psychological diseases; essentially, the resolution fails to prevent those with psychological disorders that increase a patient's desire for death from invoking the Right to Die as a form of legal suicide;
More slippery slope. You honestly think doctors are going to assist someone suffering from depression in ending their life?

-that the entire resolution, by permitting hospitals to start allowing patients to invoke the Right to Die, introduces bizarre and morbid market implications into a mortal situation; the resolution will have the unintented side effect of forcing hospitals, in an attempt to restrict costs and stay in business, to advise their patients based on their abilitity to pay their medical bills; uninsured patients are sure to be more likely to be advised to invoke the Right to Die than patients able to pay their bills.
And even more slippery slope. I shouldn't be surprised since it is the theme of the entire repeal.

What planted the notion in your head that doctors and other members of the medical profession are hell-bent on killing as many people as possible?

And I'm not sure what "unintented" and "abilitity" mean.

AND NOTING that the above problems do not simply amount to loopholes that can be exploited, but are full problems that absolutely will have an unintended negative effect.
They are only problems if you happen to have a very vivid (and morbid) imagination.

REPEALS UN Resolution 164, "Individual Self Determination"

ADVOCATES a new resolution reaffirming the right of people to determine their own fate, provided that resolution addresses the above practical concerns and avoids overt infringment on nations' sovereignty.
So, this is a repeal/replace effort from Elite Conservative Circuit? May we assume that the replacement will meet the "lofty" standards of your past legislative efforts?

Hire a proofreader.

Aüþgæþ Spøtyiú
Ambassador

There. Now I'm sure you'll want to defend the honor of the "Elite Conservative Circuit" by refuting these accusations and proving that your repeal is not, in fact, a vacuous collection of lies and slippery-slope arguments. I'll await your response.

Aüþgæþ Spøtyiú
Ambassador
Nitpicking Jackass
Gas Bag

Look, if they don't have the honesty/integrity/balls/courage/virtue (pick your noun as appropriate) to defend their own proposal, then there's no sense our getting worked up over it. We may as well use the thread for something constructive.

Anyone got any party tricks?

-- George Madison
UN Ambassador

Or maybe they just realize that their repeal is garbage and that they haven't the chance of a snowball in hell of refuting the criticisms lodged against it. But you're right. Why get worked up about it? Just vote against the thing and lobby your region to do likewise.

Balthasar H. von Aschenbach
Prime Minister

The hostility in here is sickening.

-- Marcus Diegaus III

Or maybe they just realize that their repeal is garbage and that they haven't the chance of a snowball in hell of refuting the criticisms lodged against it. But you're right. Why get worked up about it? Just vote against the thing and lobby your region to do likewise.

Balthasar H. von Aschenbach
Prime Minister
Well, it seems we have better things to do...such as real life.

The hostility in here is sickening.

-- Marcus Diegaus III

I concur.

The hostility in here is sickening.

-- Marcus Diegaus III

At least you're not being held in your office.

And while I'm at it.

*defenestrates Even Flow*

~Dr. Jules Hodz

Aüþgæþ Spøtyiú
Ambassador
Nitpicking jackass
Gas Bag

Yelda :mp5:

I bet your mother has a loud bark.

Greetings all,

I agree completely with the excellent delegate from Rubina. I'm firmly AGAINST.

I was just pondering - given that no matter what nonsense is in a resolution it is always voted into law once it passes quorum, why are we even trying to change the minds of others in a debate? The UN drones who always vote FOR don't (can't?) even read the resolution let alone this delightful debate...it makes the UN feel even more futile than usual. The drones are so stupid that they would vote the UN out of existance if an abolition resolution was allowed past quorum as an April Fools' Day joke...

And to all those people who have rude, gun-polishing, anally-retentive representatives and like to tell us about their pathetic attempts to defenstrate other delegates etc., Putzi suggests you polish in private and be gungho inside your head instead of out loud on the forum.

Putzi

(Besides everyone knows that the UN chamber is so large there are no windows in reach of any delegate without at least a two day hike past the infinity of translators, piles of polished pistols, bureaucrats and assorted hangers on and gravy enthusiasts...)

You'd be surprised at the contraptions built...

And no, not everything passes.


Marcus Diegaus III...if it's sickening in here perhaps a day trip to swim in the shark pool would be more to your liking? Or a permanent vaccination?

Dr. Hodz picks up the ambassador from Putzi and flings him out the Forgottenlord Memorial Stained Glass Window and into the Vastiva Memorial Reflecting Pool.

I am being led to believe that I am not allowed to pay the same disrespect to those who are ignorant enough to impose their views on my nation. This isn't about human rights people. This is about control. How much control does the United Nations really need over your nation? How about your people? The second of these is my concern. In order to keep my citizens successful, and safe, I must have the power to make certain decisions that may not fall in line with UN edicts. I, however, grace this chamber because I believe that some degree of control is needed. This current proposal is not the kind of control that we need. It is an attempt by the Left-Wing Elitists to impose its ignorance upon the rest of us.

--His Highness, Damien Nabokov
The Sultanate of Even Flow

Dr Hodz, put that delegate back where he belongs RIGHT NOW! You know very well you're not allowed to have desse-- to play with the defenestrator until you've listened to every last word of the debate.

Everybody, back on track and please try to set a good example. I mean, look at the effect you're having on the children --



Yelda :mp5:

I bet your mother has a loud bark.The little innocents only copy what they see the grown-ups do, you know.

-- Dicey Reilly, wrongfully President for Life of Ardchoille.

Well we could enlighten Even Flow's sultan but it is far more useful to have him voting the way he wants to.
Needs must when the ignorant ride.

Yelda :mp5:

I bet your mother has a loud bark.

Such crass impertinence has no place in this august forum!

(when I'm not here to witness it)

People should have the right to kill themselves if their life is not worth living. This repeal is stupid.

Cold and mechanically the sovereign lord of Mechalopagos beeps in binary as and is translated by an English-binary interpreter

I agree with the original spirit of this legislature though there are some flaws in it's interpretation; however repealing the law altogether would be less efficient than an amendment process.

I wish to reserve the most advanced entities in my country the right to turn their on switch to off regardless of what they have computed in simulated neural network deaths.

I agree with the original spirit of this legislature though there are some flaws in it's interpretation; however repealing the law altogether would be less efficient than an amendment process.

Regrettably, the procedures of the United Nations procedures do not allow for amendments. There are some pressing practical reasons (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12817207&postcount=7) for this state of affairs, as a result of which we must repeal and replace old legislation to achieve the same effect. In this particular case we must concur with the ambassador that we would prefer not to repeal at all, particularly not with such specious reasoning as is presented to us.

I am being led to believe that I am not allowed to pay the same disrespect to those who are ignorant enough to impose their views on my nation.

The disrespect, your highness, is shown by those who will not even pretend that the truthfulness of their arguments matters. Given their apparent contempt for this chamber, it is no wonder that they are in turn held in contempt. Surely it is obvious that attempting to defend the indefensible by arguing an entirely different and irrelevant point is likely only to cover your highness in reflected vainglory.

Such crass impertinence has no place in this august forum!

(when I'm not here to witness it)

Fine. I shall wait for you next time.

Dr Hodz, put that delegate back where he belongs RIGHT NOW! You know very well you're not allowed to have desse-- to play with the defenestrator until you've listened to every last word of the debate.

Dr. Hodz looks at Dicey.

"I have read every last word."

Dr. Hodz resumes hurling delegates through a window.

You know, I originally planned on abstaining on this one because while I'm not thrilled with the arguements presented in the repeal, I also have no love for the resolution being repealed. However, the severe lack of testicular fortitude displayed by the author's refusing to even try to defend their repeal, forces me to vote against.

(Besides everyone knows that the UN chamber is so large there are no windows in reach of any delegate without at least a two day hike past the infinity of translators, piles of polished pistols, bureaucrats and assorted hangers on and gravy enthusiasts...)You've obviously never used that mechanical marvel called the DEFENESTRATINATOR V.2™. Simply load your victim into the chamber, aim, and press the big red "Fire" button.

Dr. Hodz resumes hurling delegates through a window.

Psst, hey Doc. Wanna buy a copy of the key to the DEFENESTRATINATOR V.2™?

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Yelda :mp5:

I bet your mother has a loud bark.
And I bet yours wonders why I never call anymore.

http://img356.imageshack.us/img356/674/christophebocobnd6.jpg

The Extraterritorial Sovereign Ariddian Territory casts its vote against this repeal. Rarely have we seen such a load of ridiculously alarmist excuses for arguments crammed into a single proposal.

Christophe Boco,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

Psst, hey Doc. Wanna buy a copy of the key to the DEFENESTRATINATOR V.2™?

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Dr. Hodz brandishes a key.

"I prefer the old-fashioned way. Someone get me a sarsaparilla."

Well, it seems we have better things to do...such as real life.
Some of us have time for real life and the internet. Maybe we're just better organized than you?

But Auss, I have to disagree with you. I really don't think they realize that the repeal is garbage: that's the disturbing part.

Because the people who read this thread make up probably, oh, .1% of the voting body of the NationStates UN. Going to great lengths to defend our resolution here would amount to a waste of time, at best.

Well, it seems we have better things to do...such as real life.

What further need have we of witnesses? Ladies and Gentlemen, you have heard the blasphemy! The answer is clear … crucify them both! Defenestration is too kind and gentle for these non debaters in our midst. VOTE NO ON THIS REPEAL!

And now, for some appropriate image spam since this thread is going nowhere fast!

http://i128.photobucket.com/albums/p184/irrsstblysexy/z37334265.jpg

After consideration and discussion with other nations, His Majesty the King of Altanar, in his wisdom, has instructed our delegation to change its vote.

While we are still appalled at the moral imperialism behind imposing the "right to die" on nations that may have legitimate moral, social or religious objections to it, we are even more appalled by the attitude of the repeal authors. To show such disdain for this assembly, and refuse to even discuss their own repeal effort here, even as nations such as Altanar have undertaken the increasingly thankless and questionable task of defending it, is inexcusable.

Due to the fact that we find both sides of this situation unpalatable, Altanar will be abstaining on this matter.

- Jinella Agaranth, Ambassador

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y29/kahmikahze/ThumbsDown.jpg
One more outburst from Sherky, and its representative gets sent, ass first, out of the Genoshan office window.

-- Marcus Diegaus III

Well, it seems we have better things to do...such as real life.Ah the whinge of someone who fails at both.

I am being led to believe that I am not allowed to pay the same disrespect to those who are ignorant enough to impose their views on my nation.Maturity leads one to learn that one can disagree with others without disrespecting them.


One more outburst from Sherky, and its representative gets sent, ass first, out of the Genoshan office window.Would Ambassador Diegauss like any assistance?

--L.T.

Ah the whinge of someone who fails at both.


Reduced to hurling childish insults.That my friend is sad.

Perhaps our detractors could better spend their time drafting a new "Individual Self Determination" to replace this "dribble" as you call it once it goes into effect tomorrow.

Just a suggestion,although your indignation does amuse us.

how ironic that you post this to evenflow
Maturity leads one to learn that one can disagree with others without disrespecting them.

after you yourself just finished hurling a juvenile insult at this delegate.
One should take ones own advice.

As the author of the resolution (for those that don't already know, I wrote the thing and got it passed. Hirota just submitted it for me) being repealed, guess I should say something. This repeal is a load of cobblers, but enough people think it is worth voting for that the repeal will probably pass. Meh, doesn't worry me too much.

What does surprise me is it took so long for the opposition to this type of legislation to get their act together and do something about it. I expected this reso to be repealed months ago. Slack guys/girls, very slack.

As my activity in NationStates has nosedived over the last six months or so, there won't be a rush to submit a replacement from me. Mind you, if I did try that, the replacement wouldn't be much different to the original as I don't believe any of the 'flaws' mentioned in this repeal have any merit whatsoever, and the nat sov arguement can be waved off with the dismissive yawn I usually greet it with.

Anyway, once this reso is gone, I do hope a replacement is written, and by someone with a progressive outlook.

As representative of the small region of Way Down South in Dixie, we have decided to vote for the repeal as we are truly conservative and feel that the repeal gives us the right to run our nations as we choose. While we are in the UN in the interest of regional and international peace, any resolution that deny's a sovreign nation the right to decide for itself will be voted against by us. We will also lobby to get any legislation repealed that does this. We feel the repeal of this resolution is based upon this line. It is in the interest of this august body to determine how nation states act upon an international level, i.e. limits on nuclear proliferation, etc. However, the council has no right to determine or judge how an individual nation or region treats it's citizens unless there is a violation of human rights. We are justing stating our position and belief for this and welcome any debate. Thank you. :sniper:

Funny how the original resolution was under the category 'Human Rights'...

We also question the relevance of the fact that you are conservative. The previous Council for my nations was extremely Conservative, long before we entered these...notorious halls, and euthanasia was actively encouraged to those who were no longer able to work and support themselves, those sufferring from the incurable maladies of being born with corrupted genetic material, or those who suffered from too few brain cells.

And could you please stop training that rifle on me, I have a bullet proof vest on.

Miffed by the intransigence of Dr Hodz, the general lack of decorum and the annoyingly frequent appearance of legless little creatures with toy guns, Dicey Reilly carefully banishes her official hat to another dimension (the Secretariat makes you pay double if you ruin one), draws herself to her full height and speaks:

"In accordance with the traditions of this Assembly and the obligation of all to ensure the good governance of its meetings, I hereby give formal notice that, at the conclusion of this debate, I intend to invoke the CPT."

A gasp escapes those delegates who understand her reference. Not the dreaded Custard Pie Treatment! Oh, noes! But Dicey continues inexorably:

"Ushers, do your duty! Fiat justitia, ruat coelum!"

A troupe of stern-faced gnomes enters the enters the hall. Each bears a stack of giant custard pies. Arranging themselves around the walls, they fix their eyes on the giant hourglass above the podium into which votes are sifting, one by one ...

______________________

-- Dicey Reilly, wrongfully President for Life of Ardchoille

While we think the the Repeal is a good thing from our point of view, the intended purpose of the repeal being to tighten it up, makes us hesitate. hmmm...

Choice one: vote against a repealing a bad resolution with loopholes that I can live with if I have to,

Choice two: vote for and get it repealed (happy day) only to have it show up again in a more restrictive way (not good).

We support repeal, however we do not support the reasoning that the purpose is to resubmit a more restrictive proposal.

Regretfully, Against

Dezmar ben-Cyphr
Maximus Libra

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y29/kahmikahze/ThumbsDown.jpg
One more outburst from Sherky, and its representative gets sent, ass first, out of the Genoshan office window.

-- Marcus Diegaus III

Promises promises.

and for Yelda :sniper:

<snip>Far be it from me to wade into this mess, but if you have time to respond to insults, don't you have time to respond to legitimate complaints?

*shrug*

As if it will affect the outcome:

The Allied Empire of Jey casts its 17 votes as delegate of the United Nations AGAINST this repeal. We do not beleive strongly in individual determination being legislated at the international level, but we do beleive strongly in maintaining the quality of resolutions passed by this body. We regret the passing of this repeal.

Vance Aceon
Deputy Presiding Jevian UN Representative

I encourage everyone to vote "for" on this repeal.

If one reads my resolution and then carefully examines the original they will immediately see why this repeal is needed.

A resolution with major, potentially dangerous flaws(threats to individual life) should not be allowed to stand on the books.

The original resolution also leaves no latitude for religious based governments to decide this issue on their own.
Thus potentially forcing a moral dilemma on those governments that may hold strict "right to life" views.

I hope you will see the wisdom in repealing this flawed resolution.

The resolution is obviously flawed, as Sacred Orb has said, I think the moral implications are more serious. The UN is imposing moral values on member states. The UN is a legal body, they make laws, not morals.

how ironic that you post this to evenflow

after you yourself just finished hurling a juvenile insult at this delegate.
One should take ones own advice.

Promises promises.

and for Yelda :sniper:

Some people, obviously, earn the disrespect of others.

Leetha sighs, and turning toward the closest gnome with the giant creme pie mimes a target on her face. I just hope it's chocolate.

--L.T.

Ardchoilleans;13015461']"Ushers, do your duty! Fiat justitia, ruat coelum!"

A troupe of stern-faced gnomes enters the enters the hall. Each bears a stack of giant custard pies. Arranging themselves around the walls, they fix their eyes on the giant hourglass above the podium into which votes are sifting, one by one ...

The NSUN Nuncia of the Eternal Kawaii turns to Dicey and says, "I do hope those are non-dairy custard pies, Reilly-san."

Some people, obviously, earn the disrespect of others.

*laughs heartily*
Really,its been fun. Truthfully I could care less about your respect. Obviously I have plenty of places around NS where I am respected. What I see is a repeal although claimed to be crappily written that stillpassed by over 1800 votes.

*vanishes in a cloud of smoke*

*gaveling sound*

The PRESIDING OFFICER. It having attained to the appropriate hour on the first day of September, 2007, voting is now closed on the resolution currently at vote. The Clerk will designate the resolution.

The READING CLERK. United Nations Resolution #164. Repeal "Individual Self-Determination", proposed by The Sacred Orb, a resolution to repeal a previously passed resolution.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The decision of the United Nations has been rendered thusly: The resolution Repeal "Individual Self-Determination" was passed 4,971 votes to 3,077. The member nations of the United Nations will be immediately informed of the outcome of this vote.

Uh, UN Resolution 5 was passed by over three thousand votes. That doesn't make it well written.

Darren Funkel
Acting Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
Founder, Democratic Underground region

The resolution Repeal "Individual Self-Determination" was passed 4,971 votes to 3,077.

Speed was of the essence. The last vote had not hit the ground before Dicey had her first volley in the air. Beautiful, glutinous pies flew on skilful trajectories towards the delegates from Sherky and Even Flow. Dr Hodz's was chocolate custard, with decorative cream piping.

But on the second round she hesitated. Should the meringue-topped one go to The Sacred Orb's delegation, when they might not even be there? Was it wise to annoy Don Bob Flibble, notorious trout-wielder, given his, ahem, known associates in the snappy suits and sunglasses? And did her deep respect for Old Baldy outweigh the irresistible temptation of targetting his bald spot?

SPLAT! SPLAT!

Hesitation is fatal when the Custard Pie Treatment is in force. Dicey didn't even see where the volley came from.

"I do hope those are non-dairy custard pies, Reilly-san."

"This one is, Your Reverence," Dicey answered respectfully, tasting the one that had hit her left cheek. "But this one isn't {right ear} ... You can tell by the colour of the foil tray. Here, I'll do you a quick spell to make sure you're protected from the ones that don't meet your dietary requirements."

Unable to decide her next target, Dicey took the easy way out, as several other delegates had already done. It was always fun to try to wake up Senator Sulla.

I encourage everyone to vote "for" on this repeal.

If one reads my resolution and then carefully examines the original they will immediately see why this repeal is needed.

A resolution with major, potentially dangerous flaws(threats to individual life) should not be allowed to stand on the books.

The original resolution also leaves no latitude for religious based governments to decide this issue on their own.
Thus potentially forcing a moral dilemma on those governments that may hold strict "right to life" views.

I hope you will see the wisdom in repealing this flawed resolution.I have carefully read your repeal. It is not needed, and there is no wisdom in your repeal. Shame I'm too late to educate you on this.

So that's it? You're just not even going to answer the accusations or try to counter the arguments of the opposition? Your cowardice is astounding.

Aüþgæþ Spøtyiú
Ambassador
Nitpicking jackass
Gas Bag

Cowardice? Please. Cowardice implies I'm afraid of something. What do I have to be afraid of? Not being able to convince you? I don't fear that; I hold that as a foregone conclusion. Nothing I feel I could say would change your mind; so why bother? My goal, as always, is to pass a resolution that the majority supports; not one that is unanimously supported.

There is no absolute truth to this discussion; all debates will regress to an agreement to disagree. I have read every word of the criticisms, and all of them are valid reservations about our repeal. In my opinion, the repeal is still worth it; in yours, it isn't. These are simply different evaluations of the same text, as well as simple disagreements on ideology. There's no reason to discuss here; it will regress to agreements to disagree.

Cowardice? Please. What have I to fear?

These are simply different evaluations of the same text, as well as simple disagreements on ideology.
Not true. My opposition to your repeal was not due to ideological reasons, but rather the spuriousness of your arguments. I've been here for some time now and the one thing I care about, and have always cared about, is the quality of the legislation passed by this body.

I've opposed legislation which I would otherwise have supported (for ideological reasons) because it was shoddily written. Likewise, I've held my nose and supported things which I found ideologically distasteful simply because they were well written and I admired the effort that the author had put into them.

What bothers me the most about this whole episode is not that ISD was repealed. I'm surprised it lasted as long as it did. What bothers me is the outright scorn and contempt that yourself and The Sacred Orb showed towards a group of people who would probably have been willing to assist you in drafting a quality proposal (and no, I'm not talking about myself there). Instead you submitted it, warts and all, TGed it to quorum and then refused to even discuss the possibility that it might be flawed.

I fully expect a smug response from you, or a sniper smiley from Sherky, or more likely no response at all, but I'm being honest when I say that this has been one of the most shameful displays of derision I have ever seen in this community.

Ardchoilleans;13017374']SPLAT! SPLAT!

Hesitation is fatal when the Custard Pie Treatment is in force. Dicey didn't even see where the volley came from. "Ha! Nice shot Schmitty," Bob said while loading pies into the DEFENESTRATINATOR V.2™. Bob quickly flipped through the floorplan for the GA, located his target, aimed the DEFENESTRATINATOR V.2™ and fired.

CThere is no absolute truth to this discussion; all debates will regress to an agreement to disagree.
Marxist sub-shit. When Quintessence of Dust came into being, did our Declaration of Awesomeness say: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, but equally accept that they're not really very self-evident at all and that all opinions are equally valid'? Or put it another way. Point a gun at a post-structuralist's head and say 'your opinion that I should not pull the trigger is no more valid than mine that I should'; do that, and I will show you a hypocrite.

(Except don't do that, because pointing guns at people is nasty.)

There are absolute truths, and it makes no sense to automatically exclude truths from the moral realm from that. As I've said elsewhere, a discussion making us uncomfortable is no reason not to have it; giving way to 'well, everyone's opinion is equally correct' is the worst kind of politically correct cultural amorphism.

-- George Madison
UN Ambassador

Repeal passed.

Moral of the story: The voters care not about your arguments in this venue.

I'm sickened that this repeal passed. The saddest thing in this was that an argument used was completely fascist, in that it put the "right" of the STATE before the REAL rights of the individual.

I am withdrawing from the U.N.

I am withdrawing from the U.N.

I bagsy their office!

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

I'm sickened that this repeal passed. The saddest thing in this was that an argument used was completely fascist, in that it put the "right" of the STATE before the REAL rights of the individual.

I am withdrawing from the U.N.It's just a Repeal. There's nothing keeping your nation from continuing to follow its tenants (such as they were).