PASSED: Dignified End-of-Life Choices

[Studly Penguins]

First of all would like to Thank the Ambassador for the wonderful short essay, of which we whole-heartedly agree.

I'm a bit annoyed that my words are being used to support a possible wording of this legislation. The quote was meant to provide yet another piece of 'evidence' that euthanasia cannot possibly be internationally mandated as legal. I don't particularly care if it only gives a single method of physician-assisted suicide, so long as it doesn't trample on four centuries of medical ethics in Glen-Rhodes by allowing doctors to kill their patients. Change the mandate back to an encouragement, and the author might salvage my support.

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

Next, Dr. Castro would it make you feel better if every resolution passed or proposed in the future only "ENCOURAGED" rather than "MANDATES"?? When you finally get your Food Act going, is it going to be a huge ENCOURAGEMENT rather than actually do something?? Any Nation or myself can sit here and say "This or that bill will trample over centuries of progress" or you're killing my society". When I and others spoke out against the Freedom of Marriage Act due to we didnt like being force to allow Homos to marry, we were told to join the times and quit being bigots. So we say to you, join the times and quit holding up progress.

As far as making it extend to handicapped people, I wont do that. Its only my intent to extend this to the Terminally ill anyways. If we start goin to groups other than the Terminally ill; then I might as well scrap this bill and set up a "lemonade" stand selling guns, bullets, poisons, and a how to guide to suicide.

I have stated once and will say again, this is being made as another option for those terminally ill who do not either want hospice care, further treatment, or are ready to end their pain. The SSU and people of their ilk are not in the Medical business for "curing people" just want to make that money that comes from subjecting people maybe against their will to treatments that they do not want. No you figure "Well they're gonna die anyways, so might as well get some use out of them" and you call us left-wing Commies??

As one Ambassador has stated some are debating extremes here. Even if this or something like it ever passes, doesnt mean that all of a sudden that people are going to be lining up to have this performed.

[Grand Europic States]

"The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right... The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign."
- John Stuart Mill
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Victimless crimes are a proposition of liberalism and anarchism, as in the harm principle of John Stuart Mill, "victimless" from a position that considers the individual as the sole sovereign, to the exclusion of more abstract bodies such as a community or a state against which criminal offenses may be directed.[2]

In a democratic society, wide agreement on a given law as punishing a "victimless crime" will eventually lead to that law's abolishment, as has been the case with most laws regarding homosexuality or sodomy law, abolished in most democratic countries in the later 20th century, and to a lesser extent prostitution (see regulated prostitution). More limited are legalizations of euthanasia (legal in Japan, the Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland, Albania, Oregon and Washington) and cannabis use (see legality of cannabis by country).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The victim in "victimless" is inherently controversial. Laws are generally intended to protect people, so a criminal act is likely to have some victim, however abstract. There are four distinct possible meanings for "victimless."

First, consensual crimes with (arguably) no material harm.

Second, crimes in which the damage caused is overwhelmingly borne by the perpetrator, such as suicide or drug use. As the perpetrator has chosen to suffer the effects of these crimes, they are not a "victim" in the normal sense.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An essential part of most victimless crimes is that the participating parties consent to the act, meaning they have the cognitive faculties and necessary information to make a proper decision. Children and the mentally disabled may be incapable of consenting to certain acts, as they may lack the cognitive ability to understand their effects and implications, but this is not universally accepted. Different jurisdictions have different interpretations and requirements for informed consent.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In general, social libertarianism maintains that laws banning victimless acts have no rational or moral reason for existing and should be abolished. It also asserts that the harm caused by the prevention of these activities is often far greater than any harm caused by the activities themselves, and would justify repeal of these laws on the same harm reduction grounds that were originally used to justify them.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ambassadors, none of the above are my own words. However this arguement seems to be centered around morality, and I did not want the opposition to think that the author of this proposal or myself do not believe in morality. We do, however, subscribe to a different branch. I've borrowed some words to explain this better than I ever could've myself. Please... feel free to explain why any of this is wrong.

(OOC: Do I detect a fellow politics and international relations student? I passed my first year yesterday, will be happy if I never have to hear another JS Mill quote again!)

As one Ambassador has stated some are debating extremes here. Even if this or something like it ever passes, doesnt mean that all of a sudden that people are going to be lining up to have this performed.

Exactly, making outlandish claims that this proposal would result in a massive drop in the population of WA members due to people topping themselves is not helpful for this debate.

Yours,

[Absolvability]

(OOC: Do I detect a fellow politics and international relations student? I passed my first year yesterday, will be happy if I never have to hear another JS Mill quote again!)

OOC: Congratulations! You know a lot more about all of it than I do then... I don't study it, nor have I been to college (I think you're suggesting?) for anything (save beer pong?) I have an interest in philosophy though... both moral and political, which is why I've decided to bombard this debate with my nonsensical ramblings and, (at least coherent,) quotes. MWAHAHAHA. Sorry for the inconvenience ~_^

[Glen-Rhodes]

Next, Dr. Castro would it make you feel better if every resolution passed or proposed in the future only "ENCOURAGED" rather than "MANDATES"?? When you finally get your Food Act going, is it going to be a huge ENCOURAGEMENT rather than actually do something??

Well, yes, it would make me 'feel better'. It would also make the law somewhat bearable. First of all, nobody is accusing anyone of not having morals, or having poor ones at that. If that is what you have to gotten from my comments, then you wholly miscomprehended what I am saying. I'll put it rather simply: your morals are not the only ones, nor are the 'correct' ones. Morals and ethics are not universal; they are created through the development of society, and are thus susceptible to being unique, however inconvenient that may be. To prescribe all societies to your view of morals and ethics is tyrannical. To prescribe nations to a common medical standard, so long as they share your views, is perfectly acceptable. This can be achieved if you simply do not mandate the legalization of physician-assisted suicide.

Also, since you felt the need to insert my projects in to the discussion, you ought to actually educate yourself in what the Food Welfare Act does. As far as I know, and I think my knowledge on the subject is quite broad, the major clauses are voluntary.

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

[Absolvability]

First of all, nobody is accusing anyone of not having morals, or having poor ones at that.

Oooh I believe we are though, Doctor. I hope that is not insulting to you... but you know how I occasionally have a way of being blunt. The matter is not so much uh... lets say, 'ethical morals,' as it is 'political morals.' Certain political morals must be exercised in order to allow people to practice whatever ethical morals they should choose.

Mandating that a nation can not detract from a citizen's rights is not dictating that anybody chooses anything. To make such practices illegal is to, at least in attempt, eliminate the ethical option entirely. This is the difference between an imposition, that you are implying, and an option, as I am implying.

Now, I don't mean to say that you don't understand me or that I don't understand you. Obviously, you are advocating the rights of a government rather than a citizen, per se. Yet if you truely believe in not imposing your ethical morals on somebody, then how can you say that it should be a nation's right to do so? Isn't the very purpose of an international body to fix injustices?


Edit: Re-itterating for clarity:

"That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right... The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign."

[New Rockport]

I put my foot in my mouth on that one. The good Doctor put me in my place, as well as the Representative of Cobdenia, and finally you.

I apologize. My intent was not to put you in your place. It was merely an (at best questionable) attempt at levity on my part.

Well, I believe we'd be biting off a bit more than we could chew if we said, for example, that victims of paralasis were hereby mandated the option. It seems to be a lot to ask of people to make even the fairly small concession that those already innevitably dying should be granted the ability to take matters into their own hands and on their own terms. If we begin to approach the subject of lives that aren't already endangered but may be not worth living... we haven't a chance in hell.

However, I do not see where what is mandated here prohibits you from allowing other instances for assisted suicide.

I agree with your assessment of the political feasibility of mandating the legalization of assisted suicide for those who are not terminally ill. I am not asking for such a mandate, but merely to maintain the option of a less restrictive assisted suicide policy than the one in this proposal.

Perhaps I am misreading the proposal, but Section 2's provision that "The patient seeking to end to his/her own unbearable suffering through legally prescribed lethal drugs must be an Adult suffering from terminal illness" appears to preclude the legalization of assisted suicide of those who are not terminally ill adults by means of legally prescribed drugs.

Now this is where you do indeed have a problem. Do you not acknowledge that some of these hoops are necessary to ward off abuse, though? Please... be more specific, and we'll take this bit by bit.

Some of them, yes. The ones that are particularly problematic are the 15-day waiting period (2a) and the written request requirement (2b). State laws in New Rockport mandate waiting periods ranging from 1 to 5 days. Most states allow for a video-or audio-recorded request in the event that the patient is unable to manipulate a pen.

The Commission seems to be more a convenience than anything else... for nations that have yet to consider such instances. If this proposal were to meet with your satisfaction (and it seems that you agree with its intent,) and you were fully compliant, I do not think that you would ever necessitate an intervention. A dispute generally means something that can not be domestically resolved. If you do not need assistance, then I'd like to say that you shall have none. If the wording needs to be altered I hope it can be done.

That is fine, as long as our other issues are addressed.

Respectfully submitted,
Raj Patel, Esq.
Chief Counsel to the Ambassador
Republic of New Rockport

[Morlago]

This forum is getting a bit too many posts. I can't even find where the proposal is!

[Absolvability]

This forum is getting a bit too many posts. I can't even find where the proposal is!

OOC: The proposal hasn't undergone any drastic changes yet, so all changes have been made in the form of editing the original post. You'll need to back up to page 1 to read it. Though, here soon, I'm sure a re-posting of the draft will be in order.

I apologize. My intent was not to put you in your place. It was merely an (at best questionable) attempt at levity on my part.

Given the various points brought up by various delegations, I obviously hadn't phrased what I'd said in the best interest of myself. Therefore, you need not apologize; in fact, I thank you!

Perhaps I am misreading the proposal, but Section 2's provision that "The patient seeking to end to his/her own unbearable suffering through legally prescribed lethal drugs must be an Adult suffering from terminal illness" appears to preclude the legalization of assisted suicide of those who are not terminally ill adults by means of legally prescribed drugs.

Perhaps the author would consider inserting something before section 2 to the basic extent of, "Each nation has a right to invoke the following steps to ensure safety and ward off abuse:"

This would maintain the support of those that agree with the restrictions, but perhaps satisfy you to the extend of having more leniency available. In fact, this may be the better way to go. National sovereignty is going to be restricted one way or another... I've never contested that fact, but simply tried to justify it. However, I believe nations are given the option of HOW to comply... and therefore these restrictions need not be mandated as well.

Of course, I'll take this oppurtunity to remind everyone that I am certainly not trying to put words in the author's mouth.

[Studly Penguins]

Next, Dr. Castro would it make you feel better if every resolution passed or proposed in the future only "ENCOURAGED" rather than "MANDATES"?? When you finally get your Food Act going, is it going to be a huge ENCOURAGEMENT rather than actually do something??

Well, yes, it would make me 'feel better'. It would also make the law somewhat bearable. First of all, nobody is accusing anyone of not having morals, or having poor ones at that. If that is what you have to gotten from my comments, then you wholly miscomprehended what I am saying. I'll put it rather simply: your morals are not the only ones, nor are the 'correct' ones. Morals and ethics are not universal; they are created through the development of society, and are thus susceptible to being unique, however inconvenient that may be. To prescribe all societies to your view of morals and ethics is tyrannical. To prescribe nations to a common medical standard, so long as they share your views, is perfectly acceptable. This can be achieved if you simply do not mandate the legalization of physician-assisted suicide.

Also, since you felt the need to insert my projects in to the discussion, you ought to actually educate yourself in what the Food Welfare Act does. As far as I know, and I think my knowledge on the subject is quite broad, the major clauses are voluntary.

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

First, Doctor we first want to extend our apologies to you for stepping out of line in our response. Next, yes I do concede that you do know much about the Food-related fields as pertains to the WA and laws concerning it.

Next we will consider maybe toning it down some, but would like to hear what other delegations think about this before we make any changes regarding this. Personally we prefer this to be a mandate and I know some feel its better to "encourage".

So my question to the delegations is: "Where and what kind of compromise can we make to not only satisfy our camps that want a mandate and those who feel it should be an encouragement?"

[Studly Penguins]

This forum is getting a bit too many posts. I can't even find where the proposal is!

Sorry for that. Heres a copy of the current draft being debated:

Human Rights"/"Significant

UNSETTLED by the number of people with terminal illness 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. The following words and phrases as used in this resolution have the following meanings:
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 people who in their Nation have reached the 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 or severe handicap. The patient must also be mentally competent and possess the ability 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) Must 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 patients 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, pain management, experimental 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 wilfully 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 CAN NOT and SHALL NOT be used as an excuse for the removal of undesirable people.
e) A physician is within their rights to refuse to take part in an assisted death WITHOUT any penalties whatsoever being levied against her/him for this sole reason.

Co-author: Robert Hawkins

[Studly Penguins]

I agree with your assessment of the political feasibility of mandating the legalization of assisted suicide for those who are not terminally ill. I am not asking for such a mandate, but merely to maintain the option of a less restrictive assisted suicide policy than the one in this proposal.

Perhaps I am misreading the proposal, but Section 2's provision that "The patient seeking to end to his/her own unbearable suffering through legally prescribed lethal drugs must be an Adult suffering from terminal illness" appears to preclude the legalization of assisted suicide of those who are not terminally ill adults by means of legally prescribed drugs.

OK, the Ambassador of New Rockport does have a good, valid point. While I do feel that we should look into covering those "handicapped" or whatever you would call the eligible "Non-terminally" ill crowd; if we were to do so esteemed Ambassador what kind of restrictions or 'qualifications' would be in place or have to be met for this group of people? I must concede to Im not that strong outside of the Terminally Ill area, so any help or suggestions regarding the aforementioned statements would be appreciated. I feel we could use the same 'standards' in place for the Terminally ill since the process is the same but 'ailment' is different.

Some of them, yes. The ones that are particularly problematic are the 15-day waiting period (2a) and the written request requirement (2b). State laws in New Rockport mandate waiting periods ranging from 1 to 5 days. Most states allow for a video-or audio-recorded request in the event that the patient is unable to manipulate a pen.

We will change from 15 days to 5 day waiting period. We will look into the rest of the suggestions from New Rockport to see how and where we can work them into the bill if and where applicable. Please read my post above this one where the new draft can be seen. Changes marked in bold.

Also any thoughts on being able to cut down the wordiness of this would be appreciated as well.

[New Rockport]

OK, the Ambassador of New Rockport does have a good, valid point. While I do feel that we should look into covering those "handicapped" or whatever you would call the eligible "Non-terminally" ill crowd; if we were to do so esteemed Ambassador what kind of restrictions or 'qualifications' would be in place or have to be met for this group of people? I must concede to Im not that strong outside of the Terminally Ill area, so any help or suggestions regarding the aforementioned statements would be appreciated. I feel we could use the same 'standards' in place for the Terminally ill since the process is the same but 'ailment' is different.

The laws vary from state to state, but they cover people who are physically incapable of squeezing a trigger, or swallowing a poison pill. Most states do not allow assisted suicide of people capable of ending their lives without assistance. It would be nearly impossible to put such a definition into the resolution without going over 3,500 characters, so I propose to add a clause allowing nations to adopt laws that are less restrictive than the one in the resolution.

We will change from 15 days to 5 day waiting period. We will look into the rest of the suggestions from New Rockport to see how and where we can work them into the bill if and where applicable. Please read my post above this one where the new draft can be seen. Changes marked in bold.

Also any thoughts on being able to cut down the wordiness of this would be appreciated as well.

Thanks. Here is a proposed substitute draft which cuts down on some of the wordiness without changing any of the meaning. I also added Section 5, which unfortunately adds some wordiness, but this proposed substitute is still under 3,500 characters:

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, pain management, experimental 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 for this sole reason.

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

Co-author: Robert Hawkins

I took out the provision for severe disability, as it would be difficult to define severe disability and stay under 3,500 characters and also might result in additional opposition for the resolution. My proposed Section 5 should be sufficient to allow nations to allow assisted suicide for the severely handicapped if they so choose.

Respectfully submitted,
Raj Patel., Esq.
Chief Counsel to the Ambassador
Republic of New Rockport

[Studly Penguins]

First we like to Thank New Rockport for this new draft. We are now posting it as the offical draft so heres the new revision in the quote boxes below. Also invite other delegations to review the new text and provide their insights:

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, pain management, experimental 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 for this sole reason.

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

Co-author: Robert Hawkins

[New Rockport]

I'd like to thank my esteemed colleague from Studly Penguins for accepting Mr. Patel's proposed amendments. The proposal now has the full support of the Republic of New Rockport.

Respectfully submitted,
Silvana Rossi
Ambassador to the World Assembly
Republic of New Rockport

[Tiesabre]

This new revision of the proposal which takes out the section about people with severe disabilities, is just the type of proposal the Free Land of Tiesabre was looking for. I am glad the concerns of Tiesabre and all the other nations involved were taken into account.

As before, this proposal will continue to have the full support of The Free Land of Tiesabre.

Miss. Vivian Smith
Director of Tiesabre Human Resources
Tiesabre WA Ambassador
The Free Land of Tiesabre

[Studly Penguins]

I'd like to thank my esteemed colleague from Studly Penguins for accepting Mr. Patel's proposed amendments. The proposal now has the full support of the Republic of New Rockport.

Respectfully submitted,
Silvana Rossi
Ambassador to the World Assembly
Republic of New Rockport

This new revision of the proposal which takes out the section about people with severe disabilities, is just the type of proposal the Free Land of Tiesabre was looking for. I am glad the concerns of Tiesabre and all the other nations involved were taken into account.

As before, this proposal will continue to have the full support of The Free Land of Tiesabre.

Miss. Vivian Smith
Director of Tiesabre Human Resources
Tiesabre WA Ambassador
The Free Land of Tiesabre

We are glad that this new revision meets or exceeds some of the Delegations' expectations or requirements for support. We do appreciate the work every participant in this debate for their thoughts, opinions, edits ,etc thats helped bring this this far.

We are curious as to what the Ambassadors from Absolvability and Grand Eurpoic States think of this new draft as well as well as everyone else.

[Absolvability]

We are curious as to what the Ambassadors from Absolvability and Grand Eurpoic States think of this new draft as well as well as everyone else.

Rest assured, you have my continuing support, Ambassador. I hadn't been speaking because you have things well in hand, and really, I'm waiting for somebody else to join the discussion.

[Studly Penguins]

We are curious as to what the Ambassadors from Absolvability and Grand Eurpoic States think of this new draft as well as well as everyone else.

Rest assured, you have my continuing support, Ambassador. I hadn't been speaking because you have things well in hand, and really, I'm waiting for somebody else to join the discussion.

Thanks Ambassador, we just felt as if your silence on the topic may have been an indicator of a change in stance. Thanks!

[Absolvability]

Thanks Ambassador, we just felt as if your silence on the topic may have been an indicator of a change in stance. Thanks!

Oh no, quite to the contrary really. You don't realize, perhaps, because I've always appreciated the topics you choose to write on and the stance you take (in my limited time here,) but I assure you I have MUCH more to say when I don't agree with something. Right now... well, there isn't much left to say. Not until somebody else brings some concerns to light.

And I hope somebody does so soon... or I'm afraid you'll submit this and instantly be accused of 'not taking the proper amount of time in drafting.' -chuckles-

[Glen-Rhodes]

The author still hasn't expressed any quality reasoning on why a resolution that sets standards for physician-assisted suicide would need to mandate its legality.

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

[Studly Penguins]

The author still hasn't expressed any quality reasoning on why a resolution that sets standards for physician-assisted suicide would need to mandate its legality.

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

Then explain to me Good Dr. Castro how you would guarantee someone in YOUR nation or others like yours the right to excerise their right to Euthanasia, since you've made it clear that this is something that you oppose this, if I 'encourage' rather than mandate?? Would it satisfy you if I just guaranteed the patient that they have the right to seek Euthanasia in their country if they choose?

If you can manage to persuade me and others that you would allow those in your nation to use this option if they chose to if I go back to "Beseech" rather than "Mandate". Then I would consider it, but I highly doubt you can change our minds.

To me its like a dicatator screaming over someone giving his people the "Freedom of Expression" and asking you to encourage rather than force them to give them the abilty to? Mainly because the leader is afraid of what may happen if people were allowed 'freedoms'.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Then explain to me Good Dr. Castro how you would guarantee someone in YOUR nation or others like yours the right to excerise their right to Euthanasia, since you've made it clear that this is something that you oppose this, if I 'encourage' rather than mandate?? Would it satisfy you if I just guaranteed the patient that they have the right to seek Euthanasia in their country if they choose?

If you can manage to persuade me and others that you would allow those in your nation to use this option if they chose to if I go back to "Beseech" rather than "Mandate". Then I would consider it, but I highly doubt you can change our minds.

To me its like a dicatator screaming over someone giving his people the "Freedom of Expression" and asking you to encourage rather than force them to give them the abilty to? Mainly because the leader is afraid of what may happen if people were allowed 'freedoms'.

What I have continually sought is for you to stay on path: this proposal has much to do with the standards of physician-assisted suicide, rather than the ideological debate of any supposed 'right to die'. So, I ask again, because you have not answered my question: why the concern with establishing a universal 'right to die'? It would seem to me that a smoother and fairer route would be to set standards where physician-assisted suicide is legal, and leave the individual nations to decide whether or not to legalize a taboo practice.

You have yet to acknowledge the fact that every society is different, and what may be ethical in your nation is not necessarily ethical in mine. There are too many factors to take in to account, and by the looks of things, you are not the ideal person to even attempt to do so. Centuries of bioethical studies are to be erased by the flick of a pen, because you find it acceptable to cast your ethical beliefs as the only right beliefs. This is the very essence of tyranny. We are not dealing with the foundations of democracy -- expression, assembly, civil rights, etc; to assert that suicide is a democratic freedom, let alone a civil right, is absurd. We are dealing with an incredibly taboo practice, where the support and opposition are wildly diverse in their reasoning, and you have not even thought to explore societies other than your own.

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

[Absolvability]

What I have continually sought is for you to stay on path: this proposal has much to do with the standards of physician-assisted suicide, rather than the ideological debate of any supposed 'right to die'. So, I ask again, because you have not answered my question: why the concern with establishing a universal 'right to die'? It would seem to me that a smoother and fairer route would be to set standards where physician-assisted suicide is legal, and leave the individual nations to decide whether or not to legalize a taboo practice.

The text of this proposal seems to show preference to the standards for physician-assisted suicide because it only requires a single clause to mandate. The greater detail becomes necessary when we set circumstances... all of which were steps, undoubtedly, in trying to please the opposition to a semi-reasonable extent. Explaining how it may be reasonably proven that a person requests of sound mind and of their own volition, in order to keep this right from being abused.

Such circumstances are explained not only to keep some rogue doctor from killing his patients without their consent but also to keep massive amounts of patients from committing suicide in nations that might find this unethical.

Indeed we are trying to acknowledge your side of things, Doctor, but you must realize that we have different starting points. While I may debate the political ethics of telling a person what they can or can't do with their own body... and you may debate the ethics of the sanctity of life... I do not mean to say that anybody should be able to kill themselves, and I suspect that you don't hold the sanctity of life to be absolute. Though maybe you do... I'm not sure on your stance on such matters as abortion or capital punishment.

Either way though, my arguements were explaining a principle. The principle that a nation shouldn't interfere with how a citizen handles their own body when it doesn't effect anybody else. Principles can seldom be universally applied, however, and so this proposal wisely deals only with the terminally ill.

I do not see how a supposed sanctity of life can be seen as being paramount to a person's final wishes and comforts when their life is innevitably drawing to an end anyway.

You say that everybody should be entitled to their own beliefs and I agree. The only real difference we have is that I feel this can be done better in the hands and minds of the citizens, and you believe a nation should be able to decide for them. Your arguement seems to presume that because a society has established its own cultural and ethical values then it is just for a nation to protect the majority. This may very well be the case... but where is the victim in this 'crime?' If there is none... then there is no reason for it to be illegal.

[Studly Penguins]

What I have continually sought is for you to stay on path: this proposal has much to do with the standards of physician-assisted suicide, rather than the ideological debate of any supposed 'right to die'. So, I ask again, because you have not answered my question: why the concern with establishing a universal 'right to die'? It would seem to me that a smoother and fairer route would be to set standards where physician-assisted suicide is legal, and leave the individual nations to decide whether or not to legalize a taboo practice.

You have yet to acknowledge the fact that every society is different, and what may be ethical in your nation is not necessarily ethical in mine. There are too many factors to take in to account, and by the looks of things, you are not the ideal person to even attempt to do so. Centuries of bioethical studies are to be erased by the flick of a pen, because you find it acceptable to cast your ethical beliefs as the only right beliefs. This is the very essence of tyranny. We are not dealing with the foundations of democracy -- expression, assembly, civil rights, etc; to assert that suicide is a democratic freedom, let alone a civil right, is absurd. We are dealing with an incredibly taboo practice, where the support and opposition are wildly diverse in their reasoning, and you have not even thought to explore societies other than your own.

Why is so vital that I sit and analyze every society, norm, mores, etc?? You seem to be more pissed off b/c I am failing to see your point as you are still failing to see yours. Dr. Castro, I ask you this. How many times when you write a piece of legislation or anyone for that matter, do you do all of the aforementioned activites you mention? Its an automatic given that all societies, cultures, Nations, etc are different and see things differently. Then why is the WA here because under your aforementioned set of reasons, then we shouldnt even be passing laws here then b/c no bill passed past, present, or future will ever meet your criteria Doctor. What makes you more qualified than any other person here to sit and rule what and who is what?

I still maintain this: Show me how you would/or if you would allow your citizens/or Doctors to engage in this practice inside your borders if they so choose to engage in this and I will put it back to an encouragement.

[Glen-Rhodes]

The text of this proposal seems to show preference to the standards for physician-assisted suicide because it only requires a single clause to mandate. The greater detail becomes necessary when we set circumstances... all of which were steps, undoubtedly, in trying to please the opposition to a semi-reasonable extent. Explaining how it may be reasonably proven that a person requests of sound mind and of their own volition, in order to keep this right from being abused.

Such circumstances are explained not only to keep some rogue doctor from killing his patients without their consent but also to keep massive amounts of patients from committing suicide in nations that might find this unethical.

Indeed we are trying to acknowledge your side of things, Doctor, but you must realize that we have different starting points. While I may debate the political ethics of telling a person what they can or can't do with their own body... and you may debate the ethics of the sanctity of life... I do not mean to say that anybody should be able to kill themselves, and I suspect that you don't hold the sanctity of life to be absolute. Though maybe you do... I'm not sure on your stance on such matters as abortion or capital punishment.

Either way though, my arguements were explaining a principle. The principle that a nation shouldn't interfere with how a citizen handles their own body when it doesn't effect anybody else. Principles can seldom be universally applied, however, and so this proposal wisely deals only with the terminally ill.

I do not see how a supposed sanctity of life can be seen as being paramount to a person's final wishes and comforts when their life is innevitably drawing to an end anyway.

You say that everybody should be entitled to their own beliefs and I agree. The only real difference we have is that I feel this can be done better in the hands and minds of the citizens, and you believe a nation should be able to decide for them. Your arguement seems to presume that because a society has established its own cultural and ethical values then it is just for a nation to protect the majority. This may very well be the case... but where is the victim in this 'crime?' If there is none... then there is no reason for it to be illegal.

It's incredibly hard for me to believe that you aren't talking about of both sides of your mouth. Let me make clear your folly: if you truly believe that 'this can be done better in the hands and minds of the citizens', then you would also object to a mandate of legality. You cannot advocate a referendum, while simultaneously supporting a universal mandate, which is written and implemented by people that largely operate out of their country.

Our largest point of contention is that you believe physician-assisted suicide is a victimless crime. It is not victimless. With each and every suicide, the integrity of bioethics is challenged. But, to make a point completely clear: I am not condemning nations that find it morally or ethically suitable to legalize physician-assisted suicide. I am merely saying that it is not compatible with the Glen-Rhodes medical society. There is no doubt in my mind that a referendum would fail, but there exists an extreme side that favors it, and would happily perform it time and again. Given that the medical system in Glen-Rhodes is operated by the federal government, and federal law prohibits suicide in all forms, these extremists are barred from earning a medical license, and our system has run smoothly, and is rather exceptional at that.

Anyways, like I said before, my government has already formulated a solution to this festering attempt to shake the foundations of four hundred years of ethical standards. (Like I also said before, I will share this once the resolution is on the voting floor. That way, changes cannot be made. The great thing about having this fluffy, bleeding-heart titles, is that anybody will have a hard time repealing a resolution called "Dignified End-of-Life Choices"... so, I have no worry that this solution will stand the test of time.) Therefore, on that level, I do not particularly care if the World Assembly mandates the legality of euthanasia. I care that the World Assembly has fallen in to the habit of disregarding the wide spectrum of societies. There a few prolific authors that do not wish to place the diametrically opposing society on the same level as their own. This is dangerous, and this is unacceptable. It is for that reason why I am opposing.

... Dr. Castro, I ask you this. How many times when you write a piece of legislation or anyone for that matter, do you do all of the aforementioned activites you mention? Its an automatic given that all societies, cultures, Nations, etc are different and see things differently. Then why is the WA here because under your aforementioned set of reasons, then we shouldnt even be passing laws here then b/c no bill passed past, present, or future will ever meet your criteria Doctor.

I take in these things in to account each and every time I write a resolution. I challenge you to search through the Primary Education Act or the Food Welfare Act, and find a case where I have not ensured that all societies may function peacefully, with minimal amounts of change. It is possible to write all-encompassing resolutions, you are simply unprepared and unwilling to try.

I still maintain this: Show me how you would/or if you would allow your citizens/or Doctors to engage in this practice inside your borders if they so choose to engage in this and I will put it back to an encouragement.

They won't, and they never will. I can assure you that much.

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