PASSED: Dignified End-of-Life Choices

[Tybra]

The Hippocratic Oath, a citation "Whatever houses I may visit, I will come for the benefit of the sick, remaining free of all intentional injustice, of all mischief and in particular of sexual relations with both female and male persons, be they free or slaves."

If death is to the benefit of the sick for it's the only treatment against their pain should they not be given that treatment instead of letting them suffer more? Those that are beyond any treatment let them be with a desire to die, rest for it is in their best of benefit to die in peace rather then in agony.

[Glen-Rhodes]

The Hippocratic Oath, a citation "Whatever houses I may visit, I will come for the benefit of the sick, remaining free of all intentional injustice, of all mischief and in particular of sexual relations with both female and male persons, be they free or slaves."

If death is to the benefit of the sick for it's the only treatment against their pain should they not be given that treatment instead of letting them suffer more? Those that are beyond any treatment let them be with a desire to die, rest for it is in their best of benefit to die in peace rather then in agony.

Except, this part of the Hippocratic Oath forbids doing such a thing:

I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan;

Dr. Bradford Castro
Chief Ambassador, FAA
the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

[Kopania]

Well obviously the hippocratic oath would be altered slightly by the passing of this resolution. Or, at least, some doctors would take a different oath instead.

To say that this resolution shouldn't be allowed to pass because it goes against the hippocratic oath is like saying slavery shouldn't be illegal because black people are good at picking cotton.

Edit: Oops, this is Absolvability. Accidently posted as my puppet. Sorry.

But it doesn't say anywhere that they are good at picking cotton, the hippocratic oath says you can't kill someone, that's a known oath not a stereotype.

[Kopania]

Yes in the Classical Hipocratic Oath it says:

"I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art."

Now it makes no sense why they left that out of the modern one but this is the one that they have been reciting for hundreds of years. Note that it is also against abortion, i wonder where they got that from.

[Tybra]

Indeed but what could be considered a drug? A short overview of Encyclopaedia Britannica states, any chemical agent that affects the function of living things, note that hereby they mean a chemical agent, this however does include certain forms of medicine.

Thus would not another method be more useful, and possible to be used while still being in accordance with the Hippocratic oath?

[Kopania]

Indeed but what could be considered a drug? A short overview of Encyclopaedia Britannica states, any chemical agent that affects the function of living things, note that hereby they mean a chemical agent, this however does include certain forms of medicine.

Thus would not another method be more useful, and possible to be used while still being in accordance with the Hippocratic oath?

Britannica doesn't define what a drug is or isn't. A chemical can be in a drug, and having the assisted suicide they would most likely use chemical drugs rather than use opium or something. A drug can be cocaine, cocaine isn't a chemical its a plant. So a drug would cover anything that a modern physician would administer to a patient to kill them, effectively going against the hippocratic oath.

[Absolvability]

A drug can be cocaine, cocaine isn't a chemical its a plant. So a drug would cover anything that a modern physician would administer to a patient to kill them, effectively going against the hippocratic oath.

Weed isn't a chemical either then. It's also a plant. However, the plant doesn't get you high. The THC does. And that is a chemical. The same is true for cocaine, I'm sure.

At any rate... suppose the Doctor shot the patient in the face? Is the gun now a drug?

But it doesn't say anywhere that they are good at picking cotton, the hippocratic oath says you can't kill someone, that's a known oath not a stereotype.

Right... well, please excuse me. My analogy obviously wasn't as apt as I thought. I was being intentionally obtuse, you know, in order to exaggerate what I saw as being my point. All I'm saying is that "things aren't that way now," isn't a good reason to prohibit something from happening. There has never been, nor will there ever be, a resolution that doesn't CHANGE something.

Yes in the Classical Hipocratic Oath it says:

"I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art."

And abortions are widely practiced by Doctors that take the Hippocratic Oath. Obviously there is precedent for changes to be made. Lets not confine ourselves unnecessarily. Hippocrates made that Oath several thousand years ago. If we're going to stick by that we might as well re-institute Hammurabi's Code as well.

[Dagguerro]

Yes in the Classical Hipocratic Oath it says:

"I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art."

And abortions are widely practiced by Doctors that take the Hippocratic Oath. Obviously there is precedent for changes to be made. Lets not confine ourselves unnecessarily. Hippocrates made that Oath several thousand years ago. If we're going to stick by that we might as well re-institute Hammurabi's Code as well.

If I might interrupt to add a comment on this...as far as I'm aware in these modern days different variants of that original oath are used in different places; and indeed other oaths are substituted instead. Consequently it may or may not necessarily be against the doctor in question's oath.

[Absolvability]

If I might interrupt to add a comment on this...as far as I'm aware in these modern days different variants of that original oath are used in different places; and indeed other oaths are substituted instead. Consequently it may or may not necessarily be against the doctor in question's oath.

You're quite right. I'm certainly not the one advocating any adherence to such a code anyway. I'm simply trying to establish that a) such antiquated literature must eventually change, b) it has indeed changed, c) it would not be bad if it were to change again.

What this proposal is trying to do (though I don't agree with the most recent changes to the proposal, and have not yet decided whether I can support it in its current form,) is grant both patients and Doctors the right to practice in assisted-suicide when circumstances are appropriate. It has been the stance of a few that Doctors (in their nation,) are precluded from doing any such thing due to the Hippocratic Oath, or a reasonable facsimile thereof.

[Kopania]

But please answer this, who gives you your life? and who decides when it ends?

[Kopania]

Is anyone going to answer

[Morlago]

Studly Penguins, will you be so kind as to write a revised draft for the proposal? It's hard to keep up with nine pages of post.

[Absolvability]

Is anyone going to answer

-Chuckles,- I imagine that question to be one that most people don't fancy answering in this time and place. Incidentally, it's right up my alley. I'll trust Studly Penguins to slap me on the wrist when/if we get so off-topic that we're impeding the progress that could otherwise be made.

But please answer this, who gives you your life? and who decides when it ends?

For simple questions I will give simple answers. I trust that you have somewhere you're going with this, so I'll let you take the lead for this dance.

1) Your parents give you your life.
2) For the sake of this proposal I would say that a person decides when their own life ends. Or at least should be able to make the decision before anyone else does, since it's a very personal matter.

If you're being more general I suppose I'd have to say nature. Of course, in today's modern-world, I include humans and buildings to be a part of nature. So I hope that answer covers "natural causes," and "murder," all at once.

[Kopania]

Is anyone going to answer

-Chuckles,- I imagine that question to be one that most people don't fancy answering in this time and place. Incidentally, it's right up my alley. I'll trust Studly Penguins to slap me on the wrist when/if we get so off-topic that we're impeding the progress that could otherwise be made.

But please answer this, who gives you your life? and who decides when it ends?

For simple questions I will give simple answers. I trust that you have somewhere you're going with this, so I'll let you take the lead for this dance.

1) Your parents give you your life.
2) For the sake of this proposal I would say that a person decides when their own life ends. Or at least should be able to make the decision before anyone else does, since it's a very personal matter.

If you're being more general I suppose I'd have to say nature. Of course, in today's modern-world, I include humans and buildings to be a part of nature. So I hope that answer covers "natural causes," and "murder," all at once.

Are you religious at all?

[Tybra]

Religious or not religious is differs per person even within religion there's a large variety upon stance regarding birth and death. I fail to see how a small portion of even religious members of society should dictate about the manner of how ones life should be ended.

[Absolvability]

Are you religious at all?

In all honesty I am not. I dare say I'm spiritual though, but not in the normal sense I'm sure. I have a personalized system of beliefs that wouldn't adequately be encompassed by any one religion. So I guess you could say I'm a cultist... though the only concrete distinction between the two I can see is that cultists don't have as many followers. And I don't generally expound upon my beliefs because I definately don't want followers. I am of the belief that faith can not be borrowed. You can not get it from any book, and you certainly can not get it from any person. To act as though I were some kind of prophet or teacher would not only be extremely pretentious, but it would also preclude anyone from truely believing what I believe.

Of course, now I'm going to contradict myself by explaining my reasons for answering your questions as I did. I'm going to do it in a roundabout way, because it's rare for me to allow myself this oppurtunity and I want to cover as much ground as I can. Afterall, both your questions to me and the general opposition to the idea behind this proposal (though others have opposed for more scemantic reasons,) seems to be seated snugly in religious belief.

Good -V- Bad

I believe in good versus bad. Of course both definitions rely on necessary comparisons, and are therefore subjective by nature, but I can even go so far as to say that there is such a thing as universal goods and universal bads. Good is a bit of a tricky subject, because of the comparative properties I've mentioned. So for the most part I'm going to try and explain what I believe constitutes bad, and simply say that good is a lack thereof. Afterall, it need not encompass much more than that, since then words like great, superb, and excellent wouldn't be needed.

Bad, it seems to me, can only be when a person causes harm to another, or otherwise infringes upon the rights granted to them by nature or by law. Of course one could say that by nature I mean God, or that laws may not be just... but for the sake of this hypothetical lets not get that precise just yet. Suicide is not inherently bad because all parties involved are consenting. Now this may or may not be the wrong decision, but there is no apparent victim involved. And since this World Assembly has an excellent record of allowing people incredible freedoms in so far as they don't abuse them to the harm of others, I think this is entirely the point at hand. Afterall, consentual 'rape' is better known as sex.

Then, on the other hand, we have sacred and evil. These are derivatives of good and bad... exaggerated in meaning in order to attach their definitions to standards laid down by what we may percieve to be god. If something goes against god's will then it is said to be evil. Which is how we may come to see morality itself as being a victim in cases of suicide... or perhaps the deceased is in fact a victim though they were by necessity consenting and we have lost the ability to ask them, in hindsight, if they still agree with their decision. And perhaps life is sacred because it was granted by god.

However, I think we can dig deep into our humble innards and agree that nobody knows for sure what god's will is. Or, at least, that though we staunchly believe one thing, there is someone somewhere else that believes another with equal faith. For this reason laws should not be used to protect the sacred or condemn the evil, if only because of the connotations accompanying them. Such an act would, for the most part, constitute an ideological ban. Of course nation's may do this whereas this Assembly may not. However, it is widely precedented for the Assembly to step in where such possible injustices are occuring and impose changes. To get rid of an ideological ban is not in and of itself an ideological ban. It is simply giving each individual the option, and thereby relieving their oppression. It certainly isn't as if this proposal was ever meant to say, "everybody who contracts a terminal and painful illness is encouraged to commit suicide."

Considering the freedoms of expression, freedoms of religion, and prevention of discrimination laid down by this Assembly I should think such an open-minded stance would be readily adopted. And I'd like to assert that indeed it would be adopted if it weren't for some idea of what is sacred or what is evil. We often feel justified in overlooking human rights when we think we are serving a 'higher' purpose. What we don't realize, however, is that in doing so we are imposing religious beliefs upon another, and that god's will is uncertain ground.

Who gives you your life?

The very question relies on certain beliefs. In answering it originally I was assuming that you meant a physical existance. In such a case it can easily be demonstrated that two biological parents concieve a child. As the fetus develops it eventually gains brain activity capable of sustaining what we might consider to be consciousness. The point at which it becomes self-aware.

Though I don't mean to be dismissive-- and I can see plainly the arguement that, in a more 'original' sense, god gives all life. That there is a little spark within every one of us that could perhaps be described as a spirit or as a soul, and that god provides this spark for every life. Which is an entirely believable theory, though I don't see this fact as somehow indebting us to god since such a stance would deny the very meaning of the word 'give.'

In either circumstance the life now belongs to us. Most people that agree with the above would also agree that there is an afterlife. In which case, to commit suicide is not to put out our inner spark.

Who decides when it ends?

You know my answer to this so I'll jump right in. It is a common belief that god is omniscient and omnipresent. I see no reason to not believe that, but I do find it an unreasoned jump that from this point we go on to assume that; ergo, predestination exists. To say that god knows everything is not to say that he seeks to change anything. And if he were to want to change something wouldn't be have foreseen it and, rather than make a change, have built it differently from the start? In fact it seems illogical that if in fact we have no choices we would be granted the ability to think... and make decisions. If these decisions be superficial then one can hardly be faulted for commiting a bad/evil act. In fact, it could easily be construed to be god's fault, since he knew in the beginning what would happen and did not stop it.

What is equally religious but less contradictory is that god gives us genuine free will. And if that is the case... then it should be agreed that our environment dictates when we die... whether it be a disease, a crime, or old age.

[SilentScope4]

And this is why people think that "NatSov" rules. Because arguments over implementing one single standard of morality can lead to lots of arguments and problems over which standard of morality to implement, possibly driving people away from the WA, which would weaken the WA's influence in the long term.

I haven't kept track of the revised document. Is the WA Commission on Human Rights still there? Does the proposal still mandates? I just want to make sure.

[SilentScopians]

Description: UNSETTLED by the number of terminally ill persons with no dignified and legal means to choose to end their needless pain and suffering;

MANDATING all WA Nations allow terminally-ill persons to end their lives in a humane and dignified manner through the voluntary administration of lethal medications, expressly prescribed by a health care provider for that purpose.
ESTABLISHING the WA Commission on Human Rights to arbitrate any and all disputes concerning the implementation of this legislation.

1. Definitions:
A) “Terminal illness” means an incurable and irreversible disease that has been medically confirmed and will produce death;
B) “Attending physician” means the health care provider who has primary responsibility for the care and treatment of the patient;
C) “Consulting physician” means a health care provider who is qualified by specialty or experience to make a professional diagnosis and prognosis;
D) “Adult” means a person who has reached his or her nation’s age of majority.

2. The patient seeking to end to his/her own unbearable suffering through legally prescribed lethal drugs must be an Adult suffering from terminal illness. The patient must also be mentally competent and able to make and communicate Health-Care decisions to their doctors or through a provision in a patient's Living Will. Patient must also:

A) Make two oral requests not less than 5 days apart to receive a lethal dose of drugs;
B) Execute a written request for such medication in the presence of two witnesses who, in the presence of the patient, attest that to the best of their knowledge and belief the patient is capable, of sound mind, and acting under free will. No witness shall be a blood relative or one who stands to gain from said patients’ death.

3) Prior to legally prescribing lethal medication, the Attending and Consulting Physician must confirm the diagnosis and verify that the patient's request is voluntary. Physicians must also perform the following:

A) Inform and document on three occasions to the patient his/her diagnosis, prognosis, risks/effects of the lethal medication, other treatment options and patient’s right to rescind their lethal medication request anytime.
B) Immediately prior to administering such drug(s), either Physician must verify and document that the patient is making an informed and voluntary decision.

4. Additional provisions:

A) A patient may rescind a request for lethal medication at any time. When numerous requests are made and then rescinded; an immediate psychiatric consultation is to be ordered.
B) No person shall be subject to any penalty, including civil or criminal liability or professional discipline for participating in good faith compliance with this resolution.
C) A person that willfully seeks to cause a patient’s death without full compliance with the procedures required by this resolution shall be guilty of a crime and subject to civil, criminal, and/or other penalties.
D) This Act is to ensure a dignified end to suffering; it CANNOT and SHALL NOT be used as an excuse to remove undesirable people.
E) A physician has the right to refuse to take part in an assisted death WITHOUT any penalties whatsoever being levied against her/him.

5. This resolution shall not preclude a nation from enacting an assisted suicide law that is less or more restrictive than this resolution, so long as said law complies with Sections 4 (D) and 4 (E).

Co-author: Robert Hawkins

By making the entire resolution optional, you defeated the purpose of having a WA Commission of Human Rights in the first place.

Further, I do not believe you can have resolutions be optional. I strongly believe that this resolution is illegal, and I ask for a Mod Ruling to intervene to stop this resolution (already at quorom) from going to a Vote. Please mods, intervene.

EDIT: My name is SilentScope4, by the way. I have made this account though because I have chosen to leave Nationstates, but I want to let the mods and Studly Penguin know about this (possibly) illegal wording that has weakened the resolution's strength. I will not respond to this post though, since I will now leave NS again. Sorry.

[Goobergunchia]

[OOC: I have filed a Getting Help request asking for a ruling on this proposal and referencing this thread. I'm not convinced myself that this is illegal due to the 4(D) and (E) compliance requirement, but I'd like to see an official ruling before the AT VOTE discussion becomes hopelessly derailed.]

[Glen-Rhodes]

[OOC: I have filed a Getting Help request asking for a ruling on this proposal and referencing this thread. I'm not convinced myself that this is illegal due to the 4(D) and (E) compliance requirement, but I'd like to see an official ruling before the AT VOTE discussion becomes hopelessly derailed.]

(OOC: Wouldn't it have been better to post it in Moderation? To me, it seems that things might be done a bit faster there...)

[Ardchoille]

My apologies for the delay. For reference, if a proposal looks like reaching At Vote with a serious flaw that could make it illegal, please pull out all the stops: Getting Help plus Moderation plus IRC.

Ruling: Legal. Not an optionality violation.

Reason: The MANDATED clause makes it obligatory to provide medically assisted suicide to the terminally ill.

Clause 5 allows nations an option, yes; but the option is only to make it easier (less restrictive) or harder (more restrictive). A nation may make it difficult; they may make it very, very difficult; but in the long run, they must allow it. It is not an opting-out, "you don't have to if you don't want to", clause.

Further (though this is just icing on the cake), the proposal establishes an authority to resolve disputes. So a nation that goes to extremes in making assisted death difficult can be brought before that authority -- the potential loophole (ie, making it very, very difficult) is not as wide as it may first appear.

Goobergunchia has cited Clauses 4D and 4E. 4D's opening part -- "This Act is to ensure a dignified end to suffering" reiterates the intent of the Act -- belt and braces.

I recognise that the purpose of 4D lies in the second part, and precludes the use of the Act to dispose of "undesirable people". That, indeed, might constitute a loophole: a nation could define "terminally ill people" as "undesirable people", and then argue that this act forbids them from using it to allow "undesirable people" to die.

But it's still going to run into "MANDATES", still going to be open to challenges before an independent WA authority and also be hit by the "reasonable nation" convention. The terminally ill should also have some protection against such discrimination under the existing Charter of Civil Rights.

4E, it seems to me, is an option clause only for individuals (and that makes the act safe from challenges that it constitutes an ideological ban). If a doctor's religion/ideology/ethical commitments/sense of self-preservation stops him from assisting a suicide, he doesn't have to. But it's an option for an individual, not a nation. The nation still has to allow it.

Then there's 4B, which guarantees that religious, military or civil authorities may not penalise any person who acts within the ambit of this legislation (which has some significance for 4E). The WA has already accepted this particular limitation of religious powers in the civil field in several existing resolutions, notably CoCR, but also in the gay-rights area, without it being ruled an ideological ban.

So I'm seeing this act as safe from challenge under optionality and under ideological ban, nor have I found any loopholes so big they contradict the purpose of the legislation.

[Glen-Rhodes]

(OOC: I still maintain that Glen-Rhodes' work-around is sound, since it does not prevent citizens from offing themselves via bleeding-heart doctors. It makes it difficult for the fringe doctors' offices to obtain licensing to kill their patients. Nowhere does the act's text restrict national governments from making the qualifications or requirements difficult to meet for doctors. Furthermore, I still maintain that the WA Commission on Human Rights is powerless to enforce anything: it can only arbitrate, not deliver binding decisions. What good is arbitration going to do, if both parties don't agree to be bound by the decisions? This is why resolutions containing this type of committee usually state that the committee's decisions are binding, regardless of whether or not one party agrees to be bound by them.)

[Ardchoille]

For what it's worth, I was responding to the formal usage of "arbitration" as applied in Australian industrial relations courts. The Conciliation and Arbitration Commission first tried to conciliate (reach an agreement between the parties) and then, if both proved stubborn, would arbitrate (make an enforceable ruling). Either party could bring a case but, once brought, both parties were bound by law, wherther they agreed and were represented or not.

I agree, more clarification was needed on that point in the proposal, but I don't think its legality stands or falls on the commission.

[Glen-Rhodes]

For what it's worth, I was responding to the formal usage of "arbitration" as applied in Australian industrial relations courts. ... I agree, more clarification was needed on that point in the proposal, but I don't think its legality stands or falls on the commission.

(OOC: That's fair. If it counts at all, I didn't think the resolution was illegal, since it did require at least two things. Anyways, there's also just blatant non-compliance, but I prefer legal loopholes. Wouldn't be the first time, though: Glen-Rhodes still hasn't complied with "Access to Science in Schools".)

[Warner Channel]

This is now at vote. Oh, and by the way, you have my vote against. We need to let these people die in a humane way (euthanasia is inhumane.) Or, we can find a cure. So, we must cure, not kill.