General Assembly Debates Euthanasia Policies
The General Assembly, consistently the largest committee in the United Nations, is one of the most diverse bodies in modern diplomatic assemblies. It is easier for those not involved in the process of committee to imagine each block as a kind of sub-category of the larger whole, achieving separate goals under one governing body. In actuality, the committee can only function in its true, unadulterated form when every delegate is participating and working toward one pre-determined goal.
In the midst of the general speakers list, the delegation of Mexico expresses their country’s view saying, “death with dignity is a personal choice, but it must be made with the assured knowledge that there is familial consent in regards to the decision”. Immediately following this statement of belief, a group of delegates walk back into the room after writing the draft for an early working paper.
For a moment, it seems as though committee is moving forward in the general direction of agreement, but discussion of presenting this paper is quickly halted on account of an essential technicality: the delegates did not have the required number of signatories to present.
Those who are not currently creating a working a paper resume the process of listening to the views of the delegates on the rolling speakers list. The delegation of Iraq walks up to the podium, and it is there that he express the belief that euthanasia is both “morally and politically reprehensible,” stating that the UN involvement on this issue could potentially “impose on national sovereignty” if not dealt with in a careful, distinguished manner. Additionally, a belief was expressed in the ultimate negative religious implications of euthanasia’s global legalization. If this legalization were to happen with the passing of a resolution, those who favor against this measure because of their religious affiliation might take major offense, ultimately deepening the problem and its wide-ranging effects.
After brief but impactful speeches from the delegations of both Germany and Canada, who are both in favor of a controlled and monitored legalization, the block who previously did not have an adequate number of signatories steps forward to present with a newfound sense of vigor and assuredness.
Upon presenting their working paper, the delegate from Germany proposes the addition of a clause promising counseling to terminally ill patients considering euthanasia, as they believe it would be “extremely beneficial” and “worthy of consideration”. In addition, the delegation of Canada alluded to the possibility of his signature if Germany’s proposed clause is added to the final resolution. The sponsors of this paper agreed on adding this clause to their paper, saying it will be a “much needed” and welcome addition to the document.
As this evening of debate comes to a close, the passing of a paper looks promising. Regardless of whether or not goals are met for this first topic, the General Assembly committee may begin working on combating yet another issue in the early stages of the next session.
In the midst of the general speakers list, the delegation of Mexico expresses their country’s view saying, “death with dignity is a personal choice, but it must be made with the assured knowledge that there is familial consent in regards to the decision”. Immediately following this statement of belief, a group of delegates walk back into the room after writing the draft for an early working paper.
For a moment, it seems as though committee is moving forward in the general direction of agreement, but discussion of presenting this paper is quickly halted on account of an essential technicality: the delegates did not have the required number of signatories to present.
Those who are not currently creating a working a paper resume the process of listening to the views of the delegates on the rolling speakers list. The delegation of Iraq walks up to the podium, and it is there that he express the belief that euthanasia is both “morally and politically reprehensible,” stating that the UN involvement on this issue could potentially “impose on national sovereignty” if not dealt with in a careful, distinguished manner. Additionally, a belief was expressed in the ultimate negative religious implications of euthanasia’s global legalization. If this legalization were to happen with the passing of a resolution, those who favor against this measure because of their religious affiliation might take major offense, ultimately deepening the problem and its wide-ranging effects.
After brief but impactful speeches from the delegations of both Germany and Canada, who are both in favor of a controlled and monitored legalization, the block who previously did not have an adequate number of signatories steps forward to present with a newfound sense of vigor and assuredness.
Upon presenting their working paper, the delegate from Germany proposes the addition of a clause promising counseling to terminally ill patients considering euthanasia, as they believe it would be “extremely beneficial” and “worthy of consideration”. In addition, the delegation of Canada alluded to the possibility of his signature if Germany’s proposed clause is added to the final resolution. The sponsors of this paper agreed on adding this clause to their paper, saying it will be a “much needed” and welcome addition to the document.
As this evening of debate comes to a close, the passing of a paper looks promising. Regardless of whether or not goals are met for this first topic, the General Assembly committee may begin working on combating yet another issue in the early stages of the next session.
|