Post by Jesioneka on Aug 28, 2007 20:42:37 GMT -5
Description: UN Resolution #164: Individual Self-Determination (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
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
