[Very Rough Draft]Definitons of Death Act

[Canton Empire]

Definitions of Death Act.

The World Assembly,

Noting the possibility of accidentally declaring a person dead,

Believing that lives can be saved by instituting a worldwide definition of death,

Wishing to relieve the burden of guilt on paramedics and grant closure to families,

Hereby,

Defines "death" as the complete and total shutdown of all biological functions,

Further defines "brain death" as the point at which electrical impulses in the brain has ceased.

Orders that, upon the proclamation of brain death, life support shall be cut.

Defines "body death" as the permanent cessation of cardiovascular and respiratory functions

Mandates that legal death, the official government issue of a death certificate, shall be proclaimed in the event of a prolonged absence.

Further mandates that death shall not be proclaimed before 15 minutes after the cessation of cardiovascular and respiratory functions.

Category: Health
Strength: I don't know, I need help with this.

[Separatist Peoples]

"What on earth is the point of this?"

[Excidium Planetis]

"I find the current draft to be completely useless." Blackbourne remarks.

[Wallenburg]

"We really do not need an official World Assembly definition of 'death', Ambassador."

[Canton Empire]

"What on earth is the point of this?"

"The purpose is to ensure that people are not prematurely declared dead.

[Barunia]

"What on earth is the point of this?"

"The purpose is to ensure that people are prematurely declared dead.

This just turned into a scene from Monty Python.

"I'm not dead!"

[Canton Empire]

"The purpose is to ensure that people are prematurely declared dead.

This just turned into a scene from Monty Python.

"I'm not dead!"

Oops, fixed

[Araraukar]

"The purpose is to ensure that people are not prematurely declared dead.

What Mr. Bell was trying to ask, was "why should an international law-making system decide when someone is dead, when it should be done by well-trained medical staff?

Your proposal is a great example of what we call "micromanagement", and it's never a good idea in a resolution proposal.

OOC: Think of how a general gives an order "We must take that hill to win this battle!" Then she may give some further instructions, like "Group A makes noise on this side so group B can sneak in from that side", but she won't go into the details of what colour underwear each soldier of each group should be wearing. WA resolutions shouldn't go down to the underwear drawer level, and this one does.

[Separatist Peoples]

"What on earth is the point of this?"

"The purpose is to ensure that people are not prematurely declared dead.

"Of all the possible issues out there, this seems the least like an international one. This isn't even a national issue, this is a matter of judgment for a physician based on their experience and knowledge. Its a professional standard that may be affected by local considerations and factors.

"Besides, what does this do for the international community? What issue does this solve that was plaguing us? You can't say premature declarations of death were a significant issue up to this point. Its certainly the first I've heard of it. Given the difficulty of determining how often this happens (because if you're declared dead and stop receiving medical attention, you're going to die anyway), I really can't see this as a noticeable issue."

[Imperium Anglorum]

if you're declared dead and stop receiving medical attention, you're going to die anyway

And if you've miraculously recovered, it would be ridiculous for any non-inane government to then say 'Actually, you're dead because this legal document says so, we can't do anything about that'.

[Canton Empire]

"The purpose is to ensure that people are not prematurely declared dead.

What Mr. Bell was trying to ask, was "why should an international law-making system decide when someone is dead, when it should be done by well-trained medical staff?

Your proposal is a great example of what we call "micromanagement", and it's never a good idea in a resolution proposal.

OOC: Think of how a general gives an order "We must take that hill to win this battle!" Then she may give some further instructions, like "Group A makes noise on this side so group B can sneak in from that side", but she won't go into the details of what colour underwear each soldier of each group should be wearing. WA resolutions shouldn't go down to the underwear drawer level, and this one does.

So, do not mandate what memberstates do, just keep the definiton?

[Insoboria]

some nations have certain spiritual beliefs, and forcing a definition of death that forces them to go against their religion is wrong and immoral, people should have their own rights to make rules and regulations.

[Separatist Peoples]

What Mr. Bell was trying to ask, was "why should an international law-making system decide when someone is dead, when it should be done by well-trained medical staff?

Your proposal is a great example of what we call "micromanagement", and it's never a good idea in a resolution proposal.

OOC: Think of how a general gives an order "We must take that hill to win this battle!" Then she may give some further instructions, like "Group A makes noise on this side so group B can sneak in from that side", but she won't go into the details of what colour underwear each soldier of each group should be wearing. WA resolutions shouldn't go down to the underwear drawer level, and this one does.

So, do not mandate what memberstates do, just keep the definiton?

"If you do that, it won't be legal. I don't think this is workable in its current form unless you can identify a specific international need for a unified definition of death, or regulating the associated soquellae of death."

[Wallenburg]

"The purpose is to ensure that people are not prematurely declared dead.

"Here's a better way to do that, Ambassador: train your doctors in basic medicine."

[Aclion]

if you're declared dead and stop receiving medical attention, you're going to die anyway

And if you've miraculously recovered, it would be ridiculous for any non-inane government to then say 'Actually, you're dead because this legal document says so, we can't do anything about that'.

OOC: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lal_Bihari

[Calladan]

And if you've miraculously recovered, it would be ridiculous for any non-inane government to then say 'Actually, you're dead because this legal document says so, we can't do anything about that'.

OOC: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lal_Bihari

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_62Nk8KiQaU

[States of Glory WA Office]

if you're declared dead and stop receiving medical attention, you're going to die anyway

And if you've miraculously recovered, it would be ridiculous for any non-inane government to then say 'Actually, you're dead because this legal document says so, we can't do anything about that'.

Fairburn: It would indeed be inane to communicate with someone who is officially dead. That is why we categorically refuse to acknowledge the existence of those who are formally dead, as they are non-existent by definition.

[Excidium Planetis]

"Upon further consideration, it is my belief that this resolution is wholly unnecessary due to Resolution Three-Fifty-Five, which states:"

Further Affirms that sapient beings shall be recognized in the eyes of the World Assembly as living beings, regardless of biological status.

"And thus, the only requirement necessary to prove that you are, in fact, still living, is proof that you are a sapient being."

[Whovian Tardisia]

Further Affirms that sapient beings shall be recognized in the eyes of the World Assembly as living beings, regardless of biological status.

"And by that same logic, you would still be considered a living being if you were dead. I'm amazed nobody spotted it in the drafting process as an issue."

[Calladan]

Further Affirms that sapient beings shall be recognized in the eyes of the World Assembly as living beings, regardless of biological status.

"And by that same logic, you would still be considered a living being if you were dead. I'm amazed nobody spotted it in the drafting process as an issue."

Except don't you need to have some proof of brain activity or capability of independent thought to be sapient? Something that sets us apart from rocks and water and dirt and politicians and so on?

[Whovian Tardisia]

"I was going off of the 'regardless of biological status' bit. Whoops."

[Canton Empire]

"And by that same logic, you would still be considered a living being if you were dead. I'm amazed nobody spotted it in the drafting process as an issue."

Except don't you need to have some proof of brain activity or capability of independent thought to be sapient? Something that sets us apart from rocks and water and dirt and politicians and so on?

No, because of the way the clause is worded. The "regardless of biological status" part means that if you can prove it was sapient, it is still considered alive, regardless of being what we would consider dead

[Wallenburg]

Except don't you need to have some proof of brain activity or capability of independent thought to be sapient? Something that sets us apart from rocks and water and dirt and politicians and so on?

No, because of the way the clause is worded. The "regardless of biological status" part means that if you can prove it was sapient, it is still considered alive, regardless of being what we would consider dead

"You are not helping yourself. We will not accept a proposal that says that a pile of long-dead bones ought to be considered a living, sapient being."

[Canton Empire]

No, because of the way the clause is worded. The "regardless of biological status" part means that if you can prove it was sapient, it is still considered alive, regardless of being what we would consider dead

"You are not helping yourself. We will not accept a proposal that says that a pile of long-dead bones ought to be considered a living, sapient being."

"We are talking about GA #355 which has already been accepted into the halls of WA law, Ambassador."

[Wallenburg]

"You are not helping yourself. We will not accept a proposal that says that a pile of long-dead bones ought to be considered a living, sapient being."

"We are talking about GA #355 which has already been accepted into the halls of WA law, Ambassador."

"Ah. Well, in that case, your interpretation carries far less weight. Wallenburg will be more reasonable, and interpret it as intended by its author."