[PASSED] Assisted Suicide Act

[Mad Jack]

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.

I completely agree. This resolution does not.

[Bananaistan]

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.

Sorry for taking just a small part of your post but it the part that I totally agree with. However, my agreement with this leads me to believe that for the dignity and worth of every human being to be respected, the law must allow, at least, those with terminal illnesses which lead to a significant loss of a person's motor functions or lead to debilitating pain to decide for themselves when they wish to end their suffering. IMO, nothing could be a greater denigration of human dignity and worth than forcing a person to suffer on with no potential for recovery when they have no wish to do so.

This resolution does not enshrine the right of people to make their own choices regarding when to end their life and will allow nations to discriminate between able bodied people, who are always free to end their lives by their own means, and those who are suffering from any physical illness which limits their physical ability to exercise this ultimate expression of free will and conscience. Bananaistan cannot support it.

[Christian Democrats]

Let me note again that the General Assembly has decriminalized suicide (see Resolution 180). The issue here is when one person kills another person who wants to die. I think you will agree that it is within the historical purview of the state to regulate conduct between people that could result in death, even if that conduct is consensual; the abolished practice of duelling comes to mind.

[Bananaistan]

Let me note again that the General Assembly has decriminalized suicide (see Resolution 180). The issue here is when one person kills another person who wants to die. I think you will agree that it is within the historical purview of the state to regulate conduct between people that could result in death, even if that conduct is consensual; the abolished practice of duelling comes to mind.

I am aware of that resolution which reinforces my point.

And I agree that it is within the states's current purview to regulate such conduct.

I'm sure you will agree that a complete ban on assisted suicide is discrimination against people who cannot commit suicide by themself? And therefore you can understand our opposition to this resolution.

[Christian Democrats]

No, I don't agree because I don't believe there is a moral or international legal right to commit suicide. Resolution 180, of course, reserves to the state its traditional authority to commit to mental health treatment a person who is a danger to himself.

[Bananaistan]

The right has nothing to do with it. The unencumbered, able bodied person can commit suicide if they want to. The encumbered, seriously ill person can't.

[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 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."

So because of that we are supposed to just nod and wink at enabled murders? Not a good precedent.

[Bonifatus]

If we were a member state of the WA, we would be able to support this resolution. This is what the WA should pass, not laws but regulations. Regulations are important in maintaining safety in the world, but laws passed by the WA tend to oppress beliefs in the minority groups of its member-states

[Christian Democrats]

The unencumbered, able bodied person can commit suicide if they want to. The encumbered, seriously ill person can't.

That's dandy. Because there is no right to suicide, the seriously ill person has no right to receive assistance. There is no discrimination.

Let me give a parallel situation.

A: There is no right to dunk a basketball.
B: Yes, but it is discrimination that Goliath can dunk a basketball and that David can't.
A: Well, what do you mean by that?
B: Because it is discriminatory, David should be entitled to assistance.
A: Why should he be entitled to assistance? Dunking a basketball is not a right.

[Bananaistan]

The unencumbered, able bodied person can commit suicide if they want to. The encumbered, seriously ill person can't.

That's dandy. Because there is no right to suicide, the seriously ill person has no right to receive assistance. There is no discrimination.

Let me give a parallel situation.

A: There is no right to dunk a basketball.
B: Yes, but it is discrimination that Goliath can dunk a basketball and that David can't.
A: Well, what do you mean by that?
B: Because it is discriminatory, David should be entitled to assistance.
A: Why should he be entitled to assistance? Dunking a basketball is not a right.

Sounds to me like you wouldn't lift a child up to dunk a basketball and you'd say "tough shit sonny, you've no right to dunk a basketball so I won't help you." Afterall you can't assist people with anything unless they have a right to it. Irrelevant analogies are stupid.

I suspect we won't agree on this so I won't continue as I have made my point.

Edit: Although one would have to wonder why a resolution which deals with issues which are not rights, is categorised as a human rights resolution. Is that not an implicit acceptance that there's a right around here somewhere?

[Christian Democrats]

1. That someone should do something does not make it a right or duty nor does it mean that it is discriminatory not to do it.

2. The two liberties involved in this proposal that are commonly considered rights are freedom of travel (sec. 2) and freedom of conscience (sec. 3). In the real world, for example, see the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, articles 13 and 18.

[The Eternal Kawaii]

Let me note again that the General Assembly has decriminalized suicide (see Resolution 180). The issue here is when one person kills another person who wants to die. I think you will agree that it is within the historical purview of the state to regulate conduct between people that could result in death, even if that conduct is consensual; the abolished practice of duelling comes to mind.

Should not the esteemed representative spend their efforts on the repeal of GAR #180? Suicide, assisted or otherwise, is an abomination that should be fought against at every turn.

[The Dark Star Republic]

"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."

So because of that we are supposed to just nod and wink at enabled murders? Not a good precedent.

"I don't see how murder is an international issue. I'm sorry, but unlike some in this chamber, I prefer the WA stick to matters of genuine international import, such as international postal efficiency, rather than meddling with a one-size-fits-all policy on matters of national sovereignty."

[Grays Harbor]

So because of that we are supposed to just nod and wink at enabled murders? Not a good precedent.

"I don't see how murder is an international issue. I'm sorry, but unlike some in this chamber, I prefer the WA stick to matters of genuine international import, such as international postal efficiency, rather than meddling with a one-size-fits-all policy on matters of national sovereignty."

We are not in fundamental disagreement with that policy. Our main objection to this particular draft attempt is that it would essentially legalize certain murders by calling it assisted suicide. Our concern is that there should be a requirement for some sort of legal documentation or witnesses, such as attending medical personnel, who could verify that this is what the person wants. Without that the potential for abuse of this is too severe.

[The Dark Star Republic]

"I don't see how murder is an international issue. I'm sorry, but unlike some in this chamber, I prefer the WA stick to matters of genuine international import, such as international postal efficiency, rather than meddling with a one-size-fits-all policy on matters of national sovereignty."

We are not in fundamental disagreement with that policy. Our main objection to this particular draft attempt is that it would essentially legalize certain murders by calling it assisted suicide. Our concern is that there should be a requirement for some sort of legal documentation or witnesses, such as attending medical personnel, who could verify that this is what the person wants. Without that the potential for abuse of this is too severe.

"But it seems silly to create a WA law against murdering someone in the name of assisted suicide...when simply cold bloodedly murdering them remains legal! I am going to trust that most WA member nations are capable of passing laws against murder, and don't need hand holding by the nanny state WA on such domestic issues.

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;

"This resolution clearly gives each member nation the right to determine the legality of the issues involved: you would remain free, as would every WA member nation, to criminalise murder in these cases and to institute exactly the requirement you're talking about."

[Christian Democrats]

I also want to point out Section 5, which:

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.

Governments would be free to put in place whatever procedures they think necessary to ensure that all assisted suicides are consensual. In one country, that might mean having two witnesses, possibly family members; in another country, a person might be required by law to appear before a board of doctors or a judge before he goes forward with the euthanasia procedure.

Provided that they ensure safety and consent, governments would be free to make assisted suicide as easy or as difficult as they want; or they could choose to outlaw assisted suicide altogether. If it is too difficult or if it is impossible for a person to kill himself in his own country, Section 2 allows him the freedom to travel to another country so that he can undergo such a procedure. Furthermore, it would be up to member states to determine the reasons for which a person validly could procure assistance committing suicide. In this country, it might be available only to terminal patients; in that country, it might be available to anyone older than 65 who is tired of living.

[Grays Harbor]

We are not in fundamental disagreement with that policy. Our main objection to this particular draft attempt is that it would essentially legalize certain murders by calling it assisted suicide. Our concern is that there should be a requirement for some sort of legal documentation or witnesses, such as attending medical personnel, who could verify that this is what the person wants. Without that the potential for abuse of this is too severe.

"But it seems silly to create a WA law against murdering someone in the name of assisted suicide...when simply cold bloodedly murdering them remains legal! I am going to trust that most WA member nations are capable of passing laws against murder, and don't need hand holding by the nanny state WA on such domestic issues.

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;

"This resolution clearly gives each member nation the right to determine the legality of the issues involved: you would remain free, as would every WA member nation, to criminalise murder in these cases and to institute exactly the requirement you're talking about."

I don't believe the WA really needs to come right out and make murder illegal, as even the most uncivilized nations have some manner of penalty for murder. We have no more desire for nanny-stateism than you do. I believe you are missing my point, however, in that this, as written, and without a clause requiring confirmation and/or witnesses, could be used as a defense in murder cases. Something I personally find unacceptable.

[The Dark Star Republic]

"To be honest, I found your argument curious as I've always associated you with much stronger sovereigntist/subsidiarist views than my own, yet you now appear to be the one arguing for relatively micromanaging WA legislation in an area I think is best left to domestic policy!

"Here's my interpretation of this as written. For a start, this does not even require nations to legalise assisted suicide or euthanasia at all. Beyond that, where nations do choose to allow such practices, they are obligated to 'enact and enforce laws ensuring that [they] are safe and consensual'.

"I don't think that nation states, endowed of their full sovereignty and powers, need mothering by some WA bureaucrat to tell them how exactly to implement those laws. It could include 'confirmation and witnesses', as you suggest, but that might not be appropriate for every culture (our own laws would place much more emphasis on confirmation in the form of living wills than they would on witnesses, for what it's worth).

"The WA already protects a right to refuse life-saving treatment and has decriminalised suicide; anything beyond that is too much of a moral grey area for me to support international legislation, and I am perfectly comfortable with a 'blocker' to give decisions on euthanasia and assisted suicide back to nations to determine for themselves. I think it would be a shame if such a blocker were undermined by a lack of trust in the basic ability of individual nations to decide on essentially domestic matters."

~ Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

[Icarui]

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.

"I, of the Newly founded state of Icarui, would suggest an extension on Clause Six where All member states also make mention of procedures which were, after the procedure occured, discovered to have been either co-erced, Attained Improperly or had been rendered either failed or incomplete."

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

"I would ask that this be altered to assist countries who are in economic turmoil and may not be able to perform this function without the Assistance. In essence, The clause to be changed to resemble this;

4. Prohibits the use of World Assembly funds for assisted suicides and euthanasia procedures; With Exception to countries that are in Dire Economic turmoil.

"The People of Icarui, whom hold close the notion of self-reliance and indepence, would like to insure that that right is held strong and that they may understand what they choose to do to the fullest extent that reason and society allows."

[Ikania]

Not bad. You should add a clause mandating that the individual fully consents to it, and if they can't make the decision themselves, an established next of kin will make the decision for them. Optionally, it may be best to mandate the allowance of euthanasia if the subject is dying and completely consents.

[Grays Harbor]

"To be honest, I found your argument curious as I've always associated you with much stronger sovereigntist/subsidiarist views than my own, yet you now appear to be the one arguing for relatively micromanaging WA legislation in an area I think is best left to domestic policy!

"Here's my interpretation of this as written. For a start, this does not even require nations to legalise assisted suicide or euthanasia at all. Beyond that, where nations do choose to allow such practices, they are obligated to 'enact and enforce laws ensuring that [they] are safe and consensual'.

"I don't think that nation states, endowed of their full sovereignty and powers, need mothering by some WA bureaucrat to tell them how exactly to implement those laws. It could include 'confirmation and witnesses', as you suggest, but that might not be appropriate for every culture (our own laws would place much more emphasis on confirmation in the form of living wills than they would on witnesses, for what it's worth).

"The WA already protects a right to refuse life-saving treatment and has decriminalised suicide; anything beyond that is too much of a moral grey area for me to support international legislation, and I am perfectly comfortable with a 'blocker' to give decisions on euthanasia and assisted suicide back to nations to determine for themselves. I think it would be a shame if such a blocker were undermined by a lack of trust in the basic ability of individual nations to decide on essentially domestic matters."

~ Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

Our positions have never been strictly sovereigntist nor statist, but more pragmatist and anchored in common sense. or at least we like to kid ourselves that we have some common sense on occasion. In this case, however, we find ourselves hoping for a little more guidance from this in order to forestall abuse of the system to further somebody's own nefarious ends to avoid penalties for murder for profit. We believe that things such as living wills would also be acceptable, and in fact would fall under our own recommendation of "legal documentation" for this purpose. Like I have stated before, we merely wish to try and eliminate the possibility of somebody using this as a defense strategy for a murder. We fully agree that in most issues the nations are quite capable of determining what is and is not culturally and morally acceptable to them, but if the WA insists on trying to hold everybody's hand for them, we would at least like to mitigate the potential for irreparable damages due to omissions and vagaries.

[Christian Democrats]

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.

"I, of the Newly founded state of Icarui, would suggest an extension on Clause Six where All member states also make mention of procedures which were, after the procedure occured, discovered to have been either co-erced, Attained Improperly or had been rendered either failed or incomplete."

I'm not sure it's the job of the World Health Authority to start collecting murder statistics.

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

"I would ask that this be altered to assist countries who are in economic turmoil and may not be able to perform this function without the Assistance. In essence, The clause to be changed to resemble this;

4. Prohibits the use of World Assembly funds for assisted suicides and euthanasia procedures; With Exception to countries that are in Dire Economic turmoil.

The whole point of this proposal is for the World Assembly to take a neutral stance on the assisted suicide issue. That means that World Assembly funds should be off-limits. Also, there are far better causes toward which such funds can be used.

Not bad. You should add a clause mandating that the individual fully consents to it

See Section 5.

and if they can't make the decision themselves, an established next of kin will make the decision for them.

That isn't suicide.

Optionally, it may be best to mandate the allowance of euthanasia if the subject is dying and completely consents.

This proposal is supposed to be a blocker against that sort of meddling in national/subnational affairs.

[Ikania]

This proposal is supposed to be a blocker against that sort of meddling in national/subnational affairs.

What? So they can go through all that pain and suffering just to end up the same?

[Christian Democrats]

This proposal is supposed to be a blocker against that sort of meddling in national/subnational affairs.

What? So they can go through all that pain and suffering just to end up the same?

I'm not sure about your nation, but palliative care and hospice care in my nation are quite good. I don't think you understand the reason this proposal is being drafted. This Assembly recently repealed the resolution requiring member states to permit euthanasia.

[Ikania]

What? So they can go through all that pain and suffering just to end up the same?

I'm not sure about your nation, but palliative care and hospice care in my nation are quite good. I don't think you understand the reason this proposal is being drafted. This Assembly recently repealed the resolution requiring member states to permit euthanasia.

Seriously? Crap, that sucks. Can't we have another of those? It'd be much better than a neutral replacement like this.