[PASSED] Assisted Suicide Act

[Christian Democrats]

GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION # 285
Assisted Suicide Act
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights | Strength: Mild | Proposed by: Christian Democrats

The General Assembly,

Recognizing the ethical controversy surrounding assisted suicide and euthanasia,

Understanding that there are several asserted rights involved in the debate, including the "right to life" and the "right to die,"

Believing that the issues involved are far too complex for there to be a single policy forced on all cultures,

Seeking, therefore, to reach a compromise that is broadly acceptable to the member states of this august body,

1. Grants every member state, subject only to this resolution and active resolutions previously adopted by this Assembly, the authority to determine for itself the legal status of assisted suicide and euthanasia in its jurisdiction;

2. Declares that residents of member states, subject to the normal migration and travel laws, have the freedom to travel to foreign jurisdictions where assisted suicide or euthanasia is legal for the purpose of undergoing such a procedure;

3. Requires that no person be penalized in any way whatsoever either by the government or by a private party for exercising his freedom of conscience by choosing not to participate in an assisted suicide or euthanasia procedure;

4. Prohibits the use of World Assembly funds for assisted suicides and euthanasia procedures;

5. Mandates that member states that allow assisted suicide or euthanasia enact and enforce laws ensuring that all assisted suicides and euthanasia procedures are safe and consensual; and

6. Suggests that member states, for statistical purposes, submit annual reports to the World Health Authority on assisted suicides and euthanasia procedures that occurred in their jurisdictions in the previous year.

Votes For: 8,052 (70%)
Votes Against: 3,385 (30%)

Implemented: Tue Feb 25 2014

[Eireann Fae]

"We find ourselves in support of your endeavour. Our only suggestion at this time is to change the text of Clause Five to read 'Mandates that member states opting to allow such procedures enact and enforce laws...'. Presumably, many governments will not choose to endorse euthanasia, and would likely not care to have local legislation pertaining to the safety and consensual permissiveness of such procedures."

"For the record, citizens of such nations should know that they can always seek aid in such efforts amongst the Community of Eireann Fae."

[Elke and Elba]

"We find ourselves in support of your endeavour. Our only suggestion at this time is to change the text of Clause Five to read 'Mandates that member states opting to allow such procedures enact and enforce laws...'. Presumably, many governments will not choose to endorse euthanasia, and would likely not care to have local legislation pertaining to the safety and consensual permissiveness of such procedures."

"For the record, citizens of such nations should know that they can always seek aid in such efforts amongst the Community of Eireann Fae."

I agree. And do we need clause 6? I believe that where practices are conducted, they have their own system to check themselves. We don't really need 2 tonnes of paperwork to come from Euthanasialand every day.

[Maddia]

"We find ourselves in support of your endeavour. Our only suggestion at this time is to change the text of Clause Five to read 'Mandates that member states opting to allow such procedures enact and enforce laws...'. Presumably, many governments will not choose to endorse euthanasia, and would likely not care to have local legislation pertaining to the safety and consensual permissiveness of such procedures."

"For the record, citizens of such nations should know that they can always seek aid in such efforts amongst the Community of Eireann Fae."

I agree. And do we need clause 6? I believe that where practices are conducted, they have their own system to check themselves. We don't really need 2 tonnes of paperwork to come from Euthanasialand every day.

I agree with these alterations. Though I feel that some WA legislation on this matter is a good idea, I also feel that the nations can probably be left to their own devices on this subject (for the most part).

[Mad Jack]

I'd like to see this resolution also protect citizens of nations who travel abroad with the purpose of helping someone to have an assisted suicide.

[Point Breeze]

"We find ourselves in support of your endeavour. Our only suggestion at this time is to change the text of Clause Five to read 'Mandates that member states opting to allow such procedures enact and enforce laws...'. Presumably, many governments will not choose to endorse euthanasia, and would likely not care to have local legislation pertaining to the safety and consensual permissiveness of such procedures."

"For the record, citizens of such nations should know that they can always seek aid in such efforts amongst the Community of Eireann Fae."

I agree. And do we need clause 6? I believe that where practices are conducted, they have their own system to check themselves. We don't really need 2 tonnes of paperwork to come from Euthanasialand every day.

I believe the purpose of clause 6 is to make the blocker legal, however, that may have already been accomplished with the preceding clauses.

[Aligned Planets]

Two thoughts:

forced on all cultures

Perhaps this would be better served by forced on all member states;

Requires that no person be penalized

I wonder if this needs extending to include family members, friends, etc who may benefit from an assisted suicide / euthanasia death through inheritence, but may be liable to additional "death duty" taxes if a benefactor has ended their life in this way?

Otherwise, I really like this. A short, succinct proposal to add common-sense NatSov control over an issue that continues to divide nations to this day.

[Grays Harbor]

For this to work, in our opinion anyhow, there must be a clause in there requiring some sort of authentication prior to the assistance taking place. Otherwise, there is that particularly nasty grey area where people can make absurd claims such as "Granny wanted this. She asked me to help her commit suicide. Yes, she really did. Now where's my inheritance?"

[The Dark Star Republic]

For this to work, in our opinion anyhow, there must be a clause in there requiring some sort of authentication prior to the assistance taking place. Otherwise, there is that particularly nasty grey area where people can make absurd claims such as "Granny wanted this. She asked me to help her commit suicide. Yes, she really did. Now where's my inheritance?"

"The WA doesn't have a law against murder. I'm not sure I see the benefit of introducing one in that specific case. I'd argue murder is essentially a domestic issue anyway, and probably not worthy of international legislation."

[Auralia]

I would prefer if clause 2 were removed.

[Montenbourg]

3. Requires that no person be penalized in any way whatsoever either by the government or by a private party for exercising his freedom of conscience by choosing not to participate in an assisted suicide or euthanasia procedure;

The 'justification' of voluntary euthanasia involves rejection of a tenet fundamental to a just framework of laws in society Voluntary euthanasia is the killing of a patient at his or her request in the belief that death would be a benefit to the patient and that the killing is for that reason justified. The mere fact that someone says, in an uncoerced fashion, that he or she wants to be killed does not in itself provide a doctor with a reason for thinking death would be a benefit to that patient. No doctor would accede to an apparently naked request to be killed, however seemingly uncoerced, if he thought the patient had prospects of a worthwhile life. A request to be killed appears to be a ground for euthanasiast killing only if the doctor believes that the patient does not have a worthwhile life.
It would be contrary to any legal system which purports to protect and enforce a just social order to legalize killing which rests for its justification on the belief that certain lives lack worth. Why? Because justice in society itself requires a non-arbitrary and non-discriminatory way of identifying who are the subjects of justice. But the only way of avoiding arbitrariness in identifying the subjects of justice is to assume that all human beings, simply in virtue of being human, are entitled to be treated justly and are the subjects of certain basic human rights. In other words the basic human dignity and worth which are recognised in respecting human rights must be seen as attaching to our humanity. Basic dignity and worth would not, however, be a title to just treatment if human beings were thought capable of losing them. They are, so to speak, ineliminable features of our humanity.

Euthanasiast killing, even when it is voluntary, involves denial of the ongoing worth of the lives of those reckoned to be candidates for euthanasia. It is a type of killing, therefore, which cannot be accommodated in a legal system for which belief in the worth and dignity of every human being is foundational.

It is of critical importance to every state to maintain a body of laws consistent with respect for the dignity and worth of every human being. In particular, it is important not to legalize killing of the innocent. For it is the fundamental task of civil authority to protect the innocent. But if the claim that a person lacks a worthwhile life is held to make killing lawful, then the state has ceased to recognise the innocent as having binding claims to protection. If the state treats these claims as null, then what claim has it to that authority which derives precisely from the need of citizens for protection from unjust attack?
ociety's prohibition of intentional killing ...is the cornerstone of law and social relationships. It protects each of us impartially, embodying the belief that all are equal. We do not wish that protection to be diminished and we therefore recommend that there should be no change in the law to permit euthanasia ...The death of a person affects the lives of others, often in ways and to an extent which cannot be foreseen. We believe that the issue of euthanasia is one in which the interest of the individual cannot be separated from the interest of society as a whole.'

[Aigyptos]

Our delegation can't support this proposal with the second and third clauses as written. The World Assembly has no business telling member nations that they cannot prevent their nationals from engaging in behavior abroad that is illegal within their own borders, nor does the WA have any business mandating that member states interfere in private sector employment decisions in relation to this matter.

We could support this resolution preferably without both of these clauses, but perhaps with the second clause stricken and with a less expansive conscience protection clause that prohibits legal penalties for refusing to participate in assisted suicide or euthanasia.

The fifth clause also needs clarified, as its current wording would require even member states that do not permit assisted suicide or euthanasia to enact laws ensuring that they are safe and consensual. If they're not permitted at all, such laws would be superfluous. We therefore support the Eireann Fae delegation's suggestion for revising this clause.

[Hirota]

My government is FOR in principle.

Has the ambassador for Christian Democrats considered the impact of resolution #54 on this draft?

[Auralia]

Has the ambassador for Christian Democrats considered the impact of resolution #54 on this draft?

GAR #54 has been repealed.

[Hirota]

GAR #54 has been repealed.

So it has! Kenneth is slipping.

[Mad Jack]

GAR #54 has been repealed.

So it has! Kenneth is slipping.

You should beat him more.

[Separatist Peoples]

Tentative support. Might I suggest that in clause 3 you add:

3. Requires that no person be penalized in any way whatsoever either by the government or by a private party for exercising his freedom of conscience by choosing to participate ornot to participate in an assisted suicide or euthanasia procedure;

A small fix. I feel it might take the pressure off of individuals in societies that, while euthanasia is legal, would be received very negatively, perhaps by the local government officials, despite the sentiment of national law. Since "penalization" has many facets, many of them subtle (a doctor getting a lateral move to, say, Waste Management within his facility), I think the addition of three words might assuage that concern.

[Aligned Planets]

So are we saying here that the individual's rights will be protected only so long as they don't conflict with the state's?

Nothing is so dangerous to a society.

The entire basis, in this scenario, for judging a person mentally unbalanced is their wish to commit suicide. I submit that is a faulty premise. In many cultures, suicide is acceptable, and in and of itself cannot be used as evidence of mental illness. For those arguing that this is killing of innocents: you find nothing contradictory in a society that outlaws suicide but practices capital punishment?

There is a much heralded United Federation "double-effect principle", dating back to the outlawing of health workers of Emperor Tiberius I's reign, which states that an action that has the principal effect of relieving suffering may be ethically justified even though the same action has the secondary effect of possibly causing death.

When life has become futile, meaningless, unendurable, it must be allowed to end. Under these conditions, I find it impossible to support an existence forced on an individual by the state.

[Hirota]

AP - I would also be concerned about this proposal, were it not for the inclusion of section 2.

[Aligned Planets]

AP - I would also be concerned about this proposal, were it not for the inclusion of section 2.

Aye, but an inventive nation can find ways round those travel freedoms by restricting on some other basis.

[Bears Armed]

1. Grants every member state, subject only to this resolution and active resolutions previously adopted by this Assembly, the authority to determine for itself the legal status of assisted suicide and euthanasia in its jurisdiction;

With the previous resolution now repealed we already have that right (again) anyhows.
I therefore suggest replacing "Grants every member nation" with "Recognises that every member nation has".

[Christian Democrats]

"We find ourselves in support of your endeavour. Our only suggestion at this time is to change the text of Clause Five to read 'Mandates that member states opting to allow such procedures enact and enforce laws...'. Presumably, many governments will not choose to endorse euthanasia, and would likely not care to have local legislation pertaining to the safety and consensual permissiveness of such procedures."

Section 5 has been edited. Thank you for noticing the error.

And do we need clause 6? I believe that where practices are conducted, they have their own system to check themselves. We don't really need 2 tonnes of paperwork to come from Euthanasialand every day.

Section 6 is only a suggestion. In the real-world United States, for example, it is optional for states to report abortion statistics to the federal government. Here, it would be optional for member states to report assisted suicide statistics to the World Assembly.

I'd like to see this resolution also protect citizens of nations who travel abroad with the purpose of helping someone to have an assisted suicide.

No, that could create major legal problems in countries that prohibit assisted suicide. Allowing people to travel abroad to kill themselves is not all that problematic from a legal standpoint because those people won't be returning after they exit the country.

forced on all cultures

Perhaps this would be better served by forced on all member states

In the preamble, I want to emphasize that individual opinions on assisted suicide are closely linked to cultural views on suicide and that those views may differ significantly from culture to culture (not necessarily from country to country).

Requires that no person be penalized

I wonder if this needs extending to include family members, friends, etc who may benefit from an assisted suicide / euthanasia death through inheritence, but may be liable to additional "death duty" taxes if a benefactor has ended their life in this way?

I am not sure what you are saying here.

For this to work, in our opinion anyhow, there must be a clause in there requiring some sort of authentication prior to the assistance taking place. Otherwise, there is that particularly nasty grey area where people can make absurd claims such as "Granny wanted this. She asked me to help her commit suicide. Yes, she really did. Now where's my inheritance?"

"The WA doesn't have a law against murder. I'm not sure I see the benefit of introducing one in that specific case. I'd argue murder is essentially a domestic issue anyway, and probably not worthy of international legislation."

Here, I agree with the Dark Star Republic.

I would prefer if clause 2 were removed.

To gain enough support to pass this proposal, I believe that section is necessary.

Second, the General Assembly already holds, in Resolution 180, that it is not a crime to try to kill yourself. The ethical/legal dilemma, then, with assisted suicide is not with the patient but rather with the physician who is doing the assisting.

Our delegation can't support this proposal with the second and third clauses as written. The World Assembly has no business telling member nations that they cannot prevent their nationals from engaging in behavior abroad that is illegal within their own borders, nor does the WA have any business mandating that member states interfere in private sector employment decisions in relation to this matter.

For a blocker to be legal, it has to do something. In this proposal, I make one concession to each camp. For the anti-suicide camp, I include a clause protecting freedom of conscience. For the pro-suicide camp, I include a clause allowing people to travel abroad to kill themselves.

Tentative support. Might I suggest that in clause 3 you add:

3. Requires that no person be penalized in any way whatsoever either by the government or by a private party for exercising his freedom of conscience by choosing to participate ornot to participate in an assisted suicide or euthanasia procedure;

A small fix. I feel it might take the pressure off of individuals in societies that, while euthanasia is legal, would be received very negatively, perhaps by the local government officials, despite the sentiment of national law. Since "penalization" has many facets, many of them subtle (a doctor getting a lateral move to, say, Waste Management within his facility), I think the addition of three words might assuage that concern.

I'm not adding that as it would undermine the whole point of this proposal: to allow member states to determine for themselves how legal or illegal assisted suicide is. Some member states, for instance, might leave the issue up to their provinces or let each hospital decide what to do. Certainly, there are no moral objections to abstaining from assisted suicide; but a hospital, especially a religious one, might wish to fire doctors whom it believes are participating is seriously unethical medical practices.

So are we saying here that the individual's rights will be protected only so long as they don't conflict with the state's?

We are not discussing the "freedom" of people to kill themselves. The topic at issue is some people killing others.

1. Grants every member state, subject only to this resolution and active resolutions previously adopted by this Assembly, the authority to determine for itself the legal status of assisted suicide and euthanasia in its jurisdiction;

With the previous resolution now repealed we already have that right (again) anyhows.
I therefore suggest replacing "Grants every member nation" with "Recognises that every member nation has".

I am reluctant to use the word "recognize" because that is merely a statement of fact and not a statement of action.

I would argue, at present, that national governments and the General Assembly share the authority to regulate assisted suicide. Section 1 is a definitive statement that the General Assembly is handing over full authority to the member states in this area.

[Aligned Planets]

Perhaps this would be better served by forced on all member states

In the preamble, I want to emphasize that individual opinions on assisted suicide are closely linked to cultural views on suicide and that those views may differ significantly from culture to culture (not necessarily from country to country).

Fair enough.

I wonder if this needs extending to include family members, friends, etc who may benefit from an assisted suicide / euthanasia death through inheritence, but may be liable to additional "death duty" taxes if a benefactor has ended their life in this way?

I am not sure what you are saying here.

3. Requires that no person be penalized in any way whatsoever either by the government or by a private party for exercising his freedom of conscience by choosing not to participate in an assisted suicide or euthanasia procedure;

OOC: I don't understand what I meant here either; re-reading clause on a laptop rather than my phone, I think I misunderstood the intent on the first read. I withdraw my comment.

[Mad Jack]

I'd like to see this resolution also protect citizens of nations who travel abroad with the purpose of helping someone to have an assisted suicide.

No, that could create major legal problems in countries that prohibit assisted suicide. Allowing people to travel abroad to kill themselves is not all that problematic from a legal standpoint because those people won't be returning after they exit the country.

Then I cannot, in good conscience, support this.

Have you not considered that those choosing an assisted suicide would want at least some of their loved ones with them?

[Separatist Peoples]

No, that could create major legal problems in countries that prohibit assisted suicide. Allowing people to travel abroad to kill themselves is not all that problematic from a legal standpoint because those people won't be returning after they exit the country.

Then I cannot, in good conscience, support this.

Have you not considered that those choosing an assisted suicide would want at least some of their loved ones with them?

There's a difference between moral support and actual, culpable assistance in suicide.