PASSED: Dignified End-of-Life Choices

[Studly Penguins]

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 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:

Is this the kind of provision of which you speak of?? If not please enlighten me.

Also new edits posted in Post 1, mainly due to getting back under character limits.

Ambassador Jenner, we just added that to the bill. So there was no error on your part. We added that as we interpreted your earlier statement. Glad you approve!
Yes, that would be it. My mistake. I didn't see it when I read through it the first time.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas Ambassador

[Studly Penguins]

I just don't understand this whole hospice thing. What need is there? The proposal already allows doctors to not participate for whatever reason. If a doctor feels carrying out such acts would not be reconcilable with upholding their Oath they may opt-out. I really do not see the need to get into such specifics as hospice care. If passed this proposal would apply in 10,000 nations, making it more specific can only serve to create more complications in the way that it is implemented.

Yours,

Im with you here, but am interested in the thought behind it though. Id like to see where Absolvability is going with it first before we dismiss it in its entirety.

[Absolvability]

The idea wasn't really meant for us, Ambassadors, since we agree with the proposal in its current state. And since nobody else has seen fit to comment on the suggestion at hand, I wouldn't take it heavily just now.

However, I shall see what I can come up with as far as incorporating an appropriate clause into the proposal.

[Studly Penguins]

The idea wasn't really meant for us, Ambassadors, since we agree with the proposal in its current state. And since nobody else has seen fit to comment on the suggestion at hand, I wouldn't take it heavily just now.

However, I shall see what I can come up with as far as incorporating an appropriate clause into the proposal.

Its whatever you see fit to do Ambassador. I do agree that there isnt a huge glaring need for the whole Hospice thing in this bill. If you wish to write something up for us to consider great and if not thats fine too!

[Tiesabre]

:Instead of Ambassador Reginald Thompson, Miss. Vivian Smith, Director of Tiesabre Human Resources has taken his place:

Excuse me, our Great a Rightour leader did not find Mr. Thompson's arguement of the issue to his liking. He has been severely punished for his failure. I shall be taking his place from now on.

Due to dramatic geo-political changes to the Free Land of Tiesabre, we will no longer pursue our former issues with the resolution.

You can expect our full support of it now and in the future.

[Absolvability]

-Somewhere behind Antonius Veloci, who was very good indeed at not giving way to whimsical facial expressions, a member of his constituancy whistled at the arrival of Miss Vivian Smith.-

-Antonius turned, cast slanted eyes over the sea of innocent faces, and returned his attention forward with a playful and (hopefully,) dismissive smile,-

It appears as though we're glad to have you onboard, Miss.

To the Ambassador of Handsome and Well-Dressed Arctic Birds (the likes of which I haven't seen since Mary Poppins,): I'll be refraining from submitting any such articles as we've discussed for numerous reasons... most of which being that, given the lack of interest, I am not eager to play down this excellent proposal.

It appears as though I'm guilty of over-anticipation.

[Serbian_Soviet_Union]

Currently the proposal does require the patient to be sound of mind. It does not mention counselling the patients thought, perhaps that is something the author would consider looking at as it's a good idea. On family members making the discussion for them, I don't see what the point would be. If the patient has been deemed mentally competent then they don't need their family to make the decision for them.

This should only be done under one circumstances and that is if the person is in a critical situation that the person is braindead and there is no chance of reviving the person, the most ethical thing to do is then ask the consent of the person's family or his or her's partner and allow family to decide whether to keep the person alive or to turn off the life support and allow the person to die in a dignified manner.

Only under that circumstances would it be ethical to allow such practices to happen, anything else is assisting with murder/suicide and it is considered as a crime and a high level degree of murder.

I do not understand why you decided to criticise my political ideology, or at least the political ideology that you perceive me to have. In every proposal I have written I have not even looked at the political ideology of those debating it, whether they support or oppose it. Moreover, I have gone out of my way to make everyone of my proposals specifically address the concerns of different political ideologies. In one of my proposals I believe I actually made an amendment to appease your concerns, despite the fact that it watered down the proposal. That you would seek now to accuse me trying to rule the world because of my political ideology is most disappointing.

It is because mainly the nations with the same political idelogy as yours intend to try and force other nation's to agree with the stance of that nation and if that nation doesn't agree, it is considered a fascist or a far right extremist. In under no circumstances am i insulting your political idelogies.

[Serbian_Soviet_Union]

First I want to start with asking one thing. How am I imposing on you or the NS world that DO NOT belong to the WA?? Anything passed by this Body only affects the WA-Member nations. Last I check you and a good majority of nations do not belong to the WA. This would not affect you in the least bit or change your laws, so quit saying that it would.

You are now putting words into my mouth now. These kind of issues are best left to the individual nation's themselves to decide, not make it an international issue and a mandatory law that all WA member states must follow these unethical practices within the healthcare and hospitals practiced by doctors or nurses. For instance if a resolution like this was proposed in the real world in the United Nation's, it would create an upproah and cause alot of conflicts within the United Nation's and huge debates happening and alot of criticism made to the author of the proposal. This is what it is happening right now in the NS world within the World Assembly. You cannot expect one side of the story and one side of the views and opinions and not expect the other side to intervene and state their opinions and views and debate.

It does not effect me as a Non Member state, however we were a member state of the WA for some time a while now, we are thinking of joining back the WA before that, some issues must be resolved first.

Next, how in the hell is my proposal illegal?? Nowhere in here is an amendment to the Patients Rights Act or any other passed Resolution.

As far as your eariler comment about sinking the Health Care system, you mean you acutally view your populace as "playthings" or "guinea pigs" or "test subjects"?? Theres no requirements in there that would require Insurance companies or whatever to cover it. Even if they did look at it like this. Lets say theres 100 cancer patients and 20 of them wish to excercise their right to die. There would still be 80 patients there to "cure".

You make it sound as if this passes that everyone will be lining up to get it done which isnt and wont be the case.

You as the author of this proposal have put into consideration a national, nation’s constitution and whether or not it is violating a national law and constitution of some WA member states or not, also as what you stated to prove my point that your proposal isn’t fit to be a legislation as this proposal would allow any person or patient to ask the doctor to end his or her life and not face murder charges or assisting an murder, also it opens up a lot of loopholes allowing murderers to fabricate a person’s request to have the person be given lethal dose of euthanasia ejection to kill the person, also if a doctor isn’t competent to be a doctor and does something wrong during it’s care or after it’s care and if a doctor has diagnosed or misdiagnosed a person and has not been following proper health procedures and policies, the doctors are not seem as liable at all, also defeating the whole purpose of having strict guidelines, policies and procedures in hospital’s and medical centers. Your proposal makes it so easy for almost anyone to ask a doctor to end the person’s life without any consequences, not only that, you are forcing this to be a mandatory as well which also causes a lot of problem and will infect be voted against if approved by the delegates of the WA. Also 100 cancer patients and let’s say 20 of them wanted to end their life, why end their life when they could have been cured or saved and had been offered the best possible treatment and newer treatments that are being provided to the cancer patients and other types of patients??

Also speaking of using people as play toys, I believe it is you that is using them as play toys, once a person is sick, you expect the person to be put down which is treating them as animals and discriminating against them in the strongest form that they do not deserve life because they are sick or have had previous injuries.

Have you ever heard of Treatment?? Rehabilitation?? Cures?? Medications?? Research?? Funding?? Scientists?? Doctors?? Nurses?? And the Healthcare system?? By forcing this proposal upon all the member states of the WA, you are only killing the healthcare system of each and every WA member states.

[Serbian_Soviet_Union]

Tucking a shotgun barrel beneath your chin is hardly dignified, Ambassador. Neither is offing yourself secretively (not in order to be legal, mind you, but in order to escape punishment,) and letting your family find you in whatever mess you've left behind. What is dignified and humane is the peaceful adminstration of lethal drugs within a serene and loving environment.

Please elaborate.

Do you know what rape is called when it is consentual, Ambassador? It is called sex. Likewise, you should not consider it to be murder when consentual.

Keeping to the topic and not derailing the topic would be good.

No, Ambassador, you are instead imposing your will upon the citizens of your country based on some ethical or religious grounds that they may or may not share, in order to decrease the choices available to them and force them to suffer through the entirity of whatever terminal and painful ailments they may contract.

The only person imposing it's will upon all the member states of the WA and it's citizens is the author of the proposal due to adding the word "Mandatory" which himself did not consider any factors to do with national laws, constitution, previous resolutions passed within the WA and how the healthcare system works differently in every single
Nation according to national laws and constitution, his proposal violates this.

This should not be an international issue, but it is, because of you.

It already became an international issue once the author has presented this resolution in the World Assembly.

[Glen-Rhodes]

To quote myself:

"... Why limit it to lethal doses of drugs? What if they request a firing squad, the gas chamber, self-immolation, seppuku, or whatever babble-cock these people think of? Does it become immoral and unethical then? If so, how is lethal injection any more ethical?"

I find it unsettling that one would talk about their views about morality and ethics, calling what they do moral and ethically, but completely write off what other cultures and societies believe.

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

[Serbian_Soviet_Union]

To quote myself:

"... Why limit it to lethal doses of drugs? What if they request a firing squad, the gas chamber, self-immolation, seppuku, or whatever babble-cock these people think of? Does it become immoral and unethical then? If so, how is lethal injection any more ethical?"

I find it unsettling that one would talk about their views about morality and ethics, calling what they do moral and ethically, but completely write off what other cultures and societies believe.

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

Exactly. I do not understand why the author of this proposal could even think of proposing something like that disregarding national laws and the constitution of the nation and ethics. If we are to legalise assistent suicide by lethal injection, then we should legalise all form of assistent suicide/murder with all forms of methods such as concealed weapon's, torture, mutiliation, gas chambers etc...

I always thought doctors whole purpose is to save lives, not kill lives.

[Sionis Prioratus]

(OOC: without access to a computer, typing from a cellphone, which is unpleasant to say the least)

*snip*

IC: Since we're dealing with extreme hypotheticals, bordering the hysterical if not downright insane:

"Charter of Civil Rights": Check. Gays and lesbians have the right to exist, since their stoning to death was outlawed.

"Marriage Act" (or whatever): Check. Now we must provide marriage equality (a.k.a. "gay marriage)

"Right to a Lawful Divorce": Check. The specter of an - as yet unreported - epidemic of serial divorces has been raised; also acknowledges (but does not mandate) some nations have plural marriages.

"Reduction of Abortion": Check. Allows Nations to choose to allow abortion.

"Freedom of Expression": Check. In an extreme interpretation, may allow for lawful nude protest, even if through loopholes.

"Access to Science": Check. It brought the Apocalypse. After all it mandates access to... Science.

It seems we're fond of debating extremes. But in light of all of the above, I'm yet to see:

An army of nude polygamous lesbians, serial-divorced, going to the streets carrying banners "My soul belongs to Darwin" while setting Bibles on fire, and then rushing to fertility clinics to get pregnant through IVF, just to get a partial-birth abortion of twins months later, just for the joy of it.

Well, guess what, I highly doubt those hypothetical nude lesbians would rush to commit mass suicide by seppuku or firing squad or whatever, in the event this draft gets to quorum and passes.

Yours,

[Serbian_Soviet_Union]

(OOC: without access to a computer, typing from a cellphone, which is unpleasant to say the least)

*snip*

IC: Since we're dealing with extreme hypotheticals, bordering the hysterical if not downright insane:

"Charter of Civil Rights": Check. Gays and lesbians have the right to exist, since their stoning to death was outlawed.

"Marriage Act" (or whatever): Check. Now we must provide marriage equality (a.k.a. "gay marriage)

"Right to a Lawful Divorce": Check. The specter of an - as yet unreported - epidemic of serial divorces has been raised; also acknowledges (but does not mandate) some nations have plural marriages.

"Reduction of Abortion": Check. Allows Nations to choose to allow abortion.

"Freedom of Expression": Check. In an extreme interpretation, may allow for lawful nude protest, even if through loopholes.

"Access to Science": Check. It brought the Apocalypse. After all it mandates access to... Science.

It seems we're fond of debating extremes. But in light of all of the above, I'm yet to see:

An army of nude polygamous lesbians, serial-divorced, going to the streets carrying banners "My soul belongs to Darwin" while setting Bibles on fire, and then rushing to fertility clinics to get pregnant through IVF, just to get a partial-abortion of twins months later, just for the joy of it.

Well, guess what, I highly doubt those hypothetical nude lesbians would rush to commit mass suicide by seppuku or firing squad or whatever, in the event this draft gets to quorum and passes.

Yours,

???

[Absolvability]

Tucking a shotgun barrel beneath your chin is hardly dignified, Ambassador. Neither is offing yourself secretively (not in order to be legal, mind you, but in order to escape punishment,) and letting your family find you in whatever mess you've left behind. What is dignified and humane is the peaceful adminstration of lethal drugs within a serene and loving environment.

Please elaborate.

I'm not sure how... or on what.

Do you know what rape is called when it is consentual, Ambassador? It is called sex. Likewise, you should not consider it to be murder when consentual.

Keeping to the topic and not derailing the topic would be good.

Isn't this the topic? Or at least the contention? Laws are made to grant people rights. Laws are made to restrict rights only when they may be abused in a way that infringes on other peoples rights. To compare consentual assisted suicide to murder is intentionally overlooking the most important ingredient of each. I demonstarted this to you with an analogy that I find particularly apt and poignant.

No, Ambassador, you are instead imposing your will upon the citizens of your country based on some ethical or religious grounds that they may or may not share, in order to decrease the choices available to them and force them to suffer through the entirity of whatever terminal and painful ailments they may contract.

The only person imposing it's will upon all the member states of the WA and it's citizens is the author of the proposal due to adding the word "Mandatory" which himself did not consider any factors to do with national laws, constitution, previous resolutions passed within the WA and how the healthcare system works differently in every single Nation according to national laws and constitution, his proposal violates this.

First of all... since it is the only really important thing you said... this resolution does not conflict with any existing resolution. As far as national laws go... doesn't every resolution restrict national law in some way? I'm sorry you don't agree with this particular statute, but I'm afraid your arguement needs to be more substantial. Resolutions would not be written if injustices weren't observed. Therefore a nation's grasp must be loosened in some circumstances in order to grant citizens the rights that they should be entitled to. You say this is an imposition... I say this is progress.

You seem to be operating under two apparent false pretenses, Ambassador. I would like you to consider some things.
1) Making the availability of an option mandatory is not in any way synonymous with making that choice for a person.
2) Since every citizen is free to choose their religious/ethical/moral beliefs by pre-existing legislation, it is only the logical next step to ensure this right to even the most extreme means where it has not been expressed yet by law.

[Absolvability]

"... Why limit it to lethal doses of drugs? What if they request a firing squad, the gas chamber, self-immolation, seppuku, or whatever babble-cock these people think of? Does it become immoral and unethical then? If so, how is lethal injection any more ethical?"

Quite right. I believe the article should make use of more general terms. Chances are the author phrased it how he did simply because it seems a more humane way to die... but provided it is consentual, and meets the outlined criteria, I see no reason why all options shouldn't be available.

I'm pretty sure the allure of euthenasia is simply that is seems a very serene way to die. It is no more humane (all other things being equal,) but to a certain extent I'm sure the author is guilty of trying to use appealing vernacular. Do not fault him for that.

I find it unsettling that one would talk about their views about morality and ethics, calling what they do moral and ethically, but completely write off what other cultures and societies believe.

But Doctor Bradford, do you not recognize the difference between adding options and restricting options? We do not mean to write off a persons morals... good god, if they don't want to end their suffering then more power to them! However we can hardly say that "Christians, by law, may not commit suicide under any circumstances," and that, "Heathens may do whatever they want."

The only moral thing to do, incidentally, is to provide the OPTION for everyone, and let them make use of it at their discretion. Is this not the ultimate compromise? It's certainly not as if the proposal says, "Anybody suffering from intense and chronic pain shall henceforth kill themselves before their blood curdling cries become a burden on their poor families."

The rights of citizens are in no way lessened by this statute. I'm sorry if you do not appreciate having this aspect of your authority put into the hands of citizens... but it seems to be the only way to please all. To let them make the decision.

[Cobdenia]

i think the problem here is really the excrutiating detail about how a country is to go about bumping off it's old farts...erm...I mean giving those in terminal illness choices in the matter of dignity in death. As it stands, it is a bit too "one size fits all"; and I feel a certain amount of vagueness would not go amiss. Just say that the euthanasia should be performed by a competent, train professional (not neccessarily a doctor, though it could be), don't mention specific methods, require consent and the signing of a legal document or some such, and a couple of clauses to ensure one doesn't end up with an ethanasia being used as an excuse for genocide.

It is worth bearing in mind that many countries have their own views about what constitutes dignity, medical ethics, and may have their own forms of ethanasia available in a form that works well for their culture. In Cobdenia, if one is tired of life, one simply books oneself onto a long haul flight with Transantarctic Zeppelin Ltd...

Sir Cyril MacLehose-Strangways-Jones, KCRC
Permanent Representative

[New Rockport]

New Rockport cannot support this proposal as written. This proposal would mandate the enactment of a law that would be much more restrictive than all current state laws in New Rockport. In New Rockport, assisted suicide is legal not only for those who are terminally ill, but also for those who are permanently incapacitated. We also do not require patients who request assisted suicide to jump through all the hoops that this proposal would mandate. Finally, our domestic courts have successfully adjudicated disputes regarding assisted suicide and do not require the intervention of the World Assembly Commission on Human Rights

We would like to be able to support this proposal, but only if it is revised to allow our state governments to enact less restrictive legislation and to respect the jurisdiction of our domestic courts.

Tucking a shotgun barrel beneath your chin is hardly dignified, Ambassador.

I tend to agree, as I would prefer a .45 caliber hollow-point through the roof of the mouth. Still, there are those who prefer a 12-gauge loaded with 00 buckshot, and their wishes should be respected as well.


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

[Absolvability]

In New Rockport, assisted suicide is legal not only for those who are terminally ill, but also for those who are permanently incapacitated.

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.

We also do not require patients who request assisted suicide to jump through all the hoops that this proposal would mandate.

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.

Finally, our domestic courts have successfully adjudicated disputes regarding assisted suicide and do not require the intervention of the World Assembly Commission on Human Rights

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.

I tend to agree, as I would prefer a .45 caliber hollow-point through the roof of the mouth. Still, there are those who prefer a 12-gauge loaded with 00 buckshot, and their wishes should be respected as well.

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 hope the author will kindly make use of generalizations to include more than just lethal injections.

The point I was really trying to illustrate with my rather crude statement was that, when a person is not entitled to a legal form of suicide, they may very well take matters into their own hands. They may not have access to 'clean' methods, or, more to the point, they may not be able to share their wishes with others for fear of being stopped due to their attempt at participating in something illegal. And therefore a family member is very likely to find their corpse in whatever condition. This is what is not dignified.

[Morlago]

Dear all,

I believe that the choice of the legalization of euthanasia (or to quote this draft: dignified end-of-life choices) should be left to each individual nation to decide. The WA simply cannot forcefully allow every single member nation to legalize euthanasia. To quote the Rules for GA Proposal by Moderator The Most Glorious Hack:

Ideological Bans

Okay, so you hate capitalism. That's nice, but you can't ban it. Just like you can't ban communism, socialism, democracy, dictatorships, conservatives, liberals, Christians, atheist, or any other political, religious, or economic ideology. While it should go without saying, this is up to the Game Moderator's discretion. You may consider the banning of slavery an oppression of your "economic ideology", we do not.

If this proposal is passed to become a resolution, then it may be against some member nation's political, economical or religious ideology.

Yours,

[Glen-Rhodes]

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

[Tiesabre]

Though we do support right-to-die for the terminally ill, it seems rather extreme for some who is suffering from paralysis from the neck down to be allowed the same right-to-die rights. Remember, these people aren't dying some painful death, they've simply been handicapped.

Soon it becomes a slippery slope, soon it'll be illegal for police to intervene when a person is trying to jump off a bridge. The resolution should stay with only those that are terminally ill.

[Grand Europic States]

Though we do support right-to-die for the terminally ill, it seems rather extreme for some who is suffering from paralysis from the neck down to be allowed the same right-to-die rights. Remember, these people aren't dying some painful death, they've simply been handicapped.

Soon it becomes a slippery slope, soon it'll be illegal for police to intervene when a person is trying to jump off a bridge. The resolution should stay with only those that are terminally ill.

Though I can completely see where you're coming from, I think it would be inhumane to refuse the right to die for a person who feels that life can offer him/her nothing. That said, I find it hard to understand how a person could reach such a conclusion, even when one is in the worst place in the world surely there is always hope. That is why in the Grand Europic States anyone who wishes to die, apart from the terminally ill, must first seek counselling with psychologist so that their application can be judged to prevent people with depression and other mental challenges from simply killing themselves in desperation. Never-the-less, I do agree that it is a very difficult area, and one that should really be left out of law and instead be judged by medical experts.

Although, as said above, I do support the right to die for anyone, in theory, for the reasons listed above and the fact that this proposal may not attract support with such a radical policy, I do not think that this proposal should be extended to those who are not terminally ill.

Yours,

[Absolvability]

"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.

[Studly Penguins]

:Instead of Ambassador Reginald Thompson, Miss. Vivian Smith, Director of Tiesabre Human Resources has taken his place:

Excuse me, our Great a Rightour leader did not find Mr. Thompson's arguement of the issue to his liking. He has been severely punished for his failure. I shall be taking his place from now on.

Due to dramatic geo-political changes to the Free Land of Tiesabre, we will no longer pursue our former issues with the resolution.

You can expect our full support of it now and in the future.

Thanks very much for your support in this matter!

[Flibbleites]

Dear all,

I believe that the choice of the legalization of euthanasia (or to quote this draft: dignified end-of-life choices) should be left to each individual nation to decide. The WA simply cannot forcefully allow every single member nation to legalize euthanasia. To quote the Rules for GA Proposal by Moderator The Most Glorious Hack:

Ideological Bans

Okay, so you hate capitalism. That's nice, but you can't ban it. Just like you can't ban communism, socialism, democracy, dictatorships, conservatives, liberals, Christians, atheist, or any other political, religious, or economic ideology. While it should go without saying, this is up to the Game Moderator's discretion. You may consider the banning of slavery an oppression of your "economic ideology", we do not.

If this proposal is passed to become a resolution, then it may be against some member nation's political, economical or religious ideology.

Yours,

While that is a clever use of the rule on ideological bans, unfortunately it doesn't apply here as this proposal doesn't ban any ideologies.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative